Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Newsroom

CNN International: Tabloid Exec David Pecker Is First Witness In Historic Trump Trial; Columbia University Cancels In-Person Classes Amid Protests; IDF Intelligence Chief Resigns Over October 7 Attacks; Zelenskyy Welcomes Aid Bill, Urges U.S. To Send Arms Quickly; Trump Campaign Pleased With Opening Statements From Trump's Defense Team. Aired 3-4p ET

Aired April 22, 2024 - 15:00   ET

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

[15:00:35]

JIM SCIUTTO, CNN HOST: It is 8:00 p.m. in London, 10:00 p.m. in Kharkiv, 10:00 p.m. in Gaza as well, 3:00 p.m. here in New York City. I'm Jim Sciutto. Thanks so much for joining me today on CNN NEWSROOM.

And let's get right to the news.

We begin in Manhattan, where inside the courtroom, just behind me, the jury has been sworn in, opening statements delivered. A first witness on the stand in the people of the state of New York v. Donald J. Trump.

In opening statements this morning, prosecutors recounted a salacious catch and kill scheme in which Trump, with help from a tabloid executive, paid to cover up an alleged affair with adult film star Stormy Daniels and falsified business records some 34 times in the process. Why? Prosecutors say to prevent a revelation that Trump feared could lose him the 2016 election. In the words of the prosecution, quote, it was election fraud, plain and simple.

Trump's defense had a very different take, telling jurors, quote, I have a spoiler alert. There is nothing wrong with trying to influence an election. It's called democracy and his attorney introduced a different motive for those hush money payments saying, quote, Trump fought back to protect his family, his reputation and his brand. That is not a crime.

A wrap for the day after brief testimony from the first witness in this trial that was David Pecker, a longtime friend of Trump's former tabloid media executive. His testimony will continue tomorrow, all just the beginning of this historic criminal trial of a former president and current candidate for president.

Watching all of this with us, CNN's Katelyn Polantz.

Katelyn, let's begin with the prosecutions case here, because they are alleging not just an alleged affair, not just an attempt to hide that alleged affair, and not just an attempt to pay a person to hide that alleged affair, but that all of this was part of an effort to influence the election in a pattern of doing the same. KATELYN POLANTZ, CNN SENIOR CRIME & JUSTICE REPORTER: Something to aid

Donald Trump's campaign. That's what prosecutors presented to the jury today. And were already starting to see that with David Pecker on the stand as the first witness, who was chairman of America Media Inc., the publisher of "The National Enquirer" that was an organization that wanted to do three things, the prosecutors say, make sure there were flattering stories about Donald Trump. Make sure that were negative stories about his opponents in 2016 in American politics, and to find, and get the rights and the country roll over stories of women, lemonade you might be coming out alleging affairs with him and to bury those stories.

We are hearing from David Pecker already not just about what he is role was at American Media, Inc. He's talking about how he was somewhat a control of the very important stories related to celebrities. But we're going to see a whole ark that the prosecutors present from of how this media organization was being used and David Pecker at the very beginning in 2015, sat down with Donald Trump. Michael Cohen, his personal attorney and made an agreement with them that he could be the eyes and ears.

SCIUTTO: And they said they got the goods, not just business records, but also text messages and recording of Trumps voice describing this. Tell us about the defense's argument here, because as I was saying, they say okay, fine. Maybe this happened, but that's to influence election not to illegally turn election.

POLANTZ: Yeah, the defense team, they're going to be able to question each of these prosecution witnesses, Pecker included, after they say days of him providing testimony. So we'll be back tomorrow.

But what they're going to do in each of those testimony segments, so when they question David Pecker, when they question Michael Cohen, when they questions Stormy Daniels, they're going to and they're telling the jury this now, they're going to try and inoculate the damage that these people do. They're going to try and either undermine their credibility already, attacking Michael Cohen and his credibility, and they're also spelling out the motivations of these people.

Stormy Daniels had money that she wanted to bring in because he was being paid for things that David Pecker was trying to sell newspapers.

SCIUTTO: Right.

POLANTZ: So if they try and put this in a place of all's fair in that sort of war, politics, media, that takes it away from where the prosecutors want this to be firmly about, a campaign finance violations and election interference, not just a, what you wrote on your check or in your business record.

[15:05:14]

SCIUTTO: And finally, the other it should because this is going to be the first one they have to address tomorrow is did Trump again in the view of prosecutors violate his gag order? POLANTZ: Yeah. They have a pile of social media posts. They've already presented to the judge. They want the judge to find Donald Trump 1,000 time -- a thousand dollars for every time he violated that gag order, talking publicly about Michael Cohen. But we even saw Trump emerge out of the courtroom in the courtroom, control environment before the jury.

That's where prosecutors can say in their openings in their closings what they want about Michael Cohen, question him, but the judge wants to make sure this trial is protected. Witnesses don't feel intimidation. Trump comes out in the hallway and says, Michael Cohen as a lawyer, he doesn't mention by name but clearly refers to him that he wasn't good in representing people and that he invoiced Donald Trump for his legal work and I got indicted. That's what Trump said.

That distance of making Trump feel separated from what Michael Cohen did in the Stormy Daniels payment, that's key here, Jim.

SCIUTTO: Whereas prosecutors say there was a meeting and this is very intentional. We'll see who wins the minds of the jurors.

Katelyn Polantz, thanks so much.

Let's bring in two legal experts now to look at the law behind all this. Defense Attorney Misty Marris -- Misty Marris rather and Jeff Swartz, former Florida judge, professor of law at the Cooley Law School.

Thanks so much to both of you.

First to you, Jeff. Your -- tell us what the legal bar here is, for basically proving or deciding between the two arguments we saw from the prosecutors, this was an illegal attempt to influence the election. From the defense, they say sure, influence the election, but just to protect his reputation, protect his family.

What's the legal standard prosecutors have to meet?

JEFFREY SWARTZ, PROFESSOR, COOLEY LAW SCHOOL: Protecting his reputation and protecting what people think about him was exactly what he was concerned about when he was trying to get around this story interfering with his run for presidency. So it's kind of a synonym for that.

I also take a look at the fact that the defense basically admitted almost everything there is that's going to come on factually and they're coming down to saying, well, he didn't do it to influence the election, but he did do it to protect his reputation. There's something about those two to come together.

I wasn't particularly enamored with the opening statement of the defense, I thought it was rather haphazard. I thought that it went from one thing to another thing without a real chronological order or any kind of semblance of organization. The defense attorney who is addressing them as more -- look more like a prosecutor who was just trying to answer a defendant's closing statement in rebuttal. I thought the opening statement of the state was very organized, very

chronological. It was very direct. And I think it presented a lot of problems for the defense in this particular case.

SCIUTTO: Uh-huh.

Misty Marris, it strikes me when the defense team stipulates in effect, the facts of the case or many of the facts of the case as presented by the prosecution is because they -- they know they got the goods, right, and they have a lineup of witnesses. They say they have text messages, recordings, et cetera, to back up -- back up their line of argument but does that from a defense perspective, is this a smart strategy here, so then say that's all fine, but it doesn't mean my client should go to jail?

MISTY MARRIS, DEFENSE ATTORNEY: It's really the argument that the defense has to raise and that's because what is this case from the prosecutors perspective. It's falsifying business records for the purpose of covering up another crime.

And so far, for the Trump defense team, what they need to do is tell the jury that the NDA that Stormy Daniels sign is not a crime within itself, but the prosecution has to prove that intent to commit another crime in order for this to be a felony. To do so, Jim, what we heard the defense team present is that there's what's called a mixed motive.

So, yes, the NDA exists. Yes. Stormy Daniels signed it. Yes, money was exchanged, but the motivations to exchange that was not necessarily directly related to the election. It's related to embarrassment, his company, his reputation, his family.

So that's what the defense is presenting, whether or not that actually moves the needle for the jury -- well, that's a question of fact for the jury to decide, but those are the central arguments the defense does have to present because -- look, a lot of this is going to be in documents, right? This is going to be a very, very document heavy case. And so the defense is trying to frame that so that when the jury is viewing the documents and the witness testimony, they're remembering that theme just presented in the open statement.

[15:10:07]

SCIUTTO: Right. Jeff Swartz, I wonder, in your experience as a judge, how influential are opening statements in terms of setting the tone, influencing the jury, telling a story, it strikes me in effect? They are prosecutors and defense are trying to tell a story to the jurors here.

SWARTZ: I think it's important to the prosecution to set forth a story, to set forth what the evidence is going to be and how they're going to get there. I've never really felt that defendants put putting on a particularly strong opening statement other than saying we don't think the evidence will prove the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. We want you to look here. We want you to look there and basically keep it short, which is why I think the defense opening statement was about half the length of the prosecutions. Because the prosecution carries the burden of proof, they need to get the jury on their side to start out with. The defendant only needs to poke holes in the case and try to find that one juror who buys their theory of the case. And that's all they're really looking.

SCIUTTO: Misty Marris, I wonder when you look at David Pecker and perhaps some of the other witnesses that we expect to come forward Michael Cohen, perhaps even Stormy Daniels, not perfect witnesses, right? I mean, no witnesses does are perfect. But in this case, it does it present opportunities for the defense to -- and we already got a taste of this, right -- they're going to attempt to call into question their credibility?

MARRIS: Yeah. Michael Cohen's credibility will absolutely be questioned. Stormy Daniels, too, remember, she did receive money in exchange for this.

So credibility is always a central issue in the cross-examination of any witness. And when there's something to latch onto from a defense perspective, of course you do.

I actually think David Pecker -- look, there's going to be a lot of messages or witness testimony that really lays out what this catch and kill plan was all about. And he's going to be the one that's going to be able to talk about that. And that's really important because of that issue of intent.

Now from a defense perspective, you're going to say -- well, guess what? He has a non-prosecution agreement. He's an agreement with the prosecutors in order to testify, so that he is not, in fact, going to be indicted on something. So, that's always something that defense is going to bring up.

But to that point, David Pecker has to be truthful. Truthfulness is a key component when it comes to a prosecution agreement. If he is not truthful on the stand then he does risk actually finding himself in legal hot water.

So there's always a yin and a yang for lack of a better word to every single witness. But, of course, the defense goes hard on credibility, on cross-examination to any witness in this case.

SCIUTTO: Jeff Swartz, the first order of business tomorrow is going to be the question as to whether Trump violated the judge judges gag order in terms of Trump, either in social media postings or his statements outside the courtroom. Here by attacking witnesses or other members of the court in this trial, do you believe prosecutors have a case for that right now I do.

SWARTZ: I do. I think that the former president, the defendant in this case, is clearly testing how far he can go. I don't think thousand dollars a violation is going to mean very much to Donald Trump. A hundred thousand dollars of violation might mean something to him, but we're never going to get to that point.

But somewhere along the line, the judge is going to have to having been there they keep pushing, they keep denying what you're doing. They keep basically just doing which tell him not to or don't do what you tell them to you have to get forceful. And I've had that circumstance where it came within about a hairs breadth of putting a lawyer in jail and then all of a sudden, he decides -- he was calling around saying, am I -- is he really got to put me in jail? And other judges were saying, yes, you're defying him in open court. Yes. You're going to go to jail and that's when he did exactly what I told him he should do.

Somewhere along the line, that threat has to mean something that Donald Trump. If it doesn't, he's just going to doing what he's doing.

SCIUTTO: No question. Well, Jeff Swartz knows a thing or two about running a courtroom, Misty Marris -- to both of you. Thanks very much.

And still -- still to come this hour, crisis on campus. At least 45 people have been arrested during pro-Palestinian protests at Yale University. At Columbia, there is now remote learning to try to help turn down the temperature there. How American universities are still grappling with intense divisions and emotions over the war in Gaza. That's coming up.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[05:18:05]

SCIUTTO: Welcome back.

As Passover now begins, a major Jewish holiday, of course, concern is rising on several college campuses. So at least 45 people have been arrested during a pro-Palestinian protest at Yale University, this for trespassing.

At Columbia University here in New York, classes are being held virtually today after last weeks protest that became heated. Pro- Palestinian student groups from Columbia released a statement saying, quote, we firmly reject any form of hate or bigotry and stand vigilant against non-students attempting to disrupt the solidarity being forged among students. We have been peaceful.

Polo Sandoval joins me now from Columbia University.

A heavy police presence. I know there today and there were several students removed from that square behind you there earlier? I suppose. One very basic question is, where are university authorities drawing the line, what -- what form of protests are they deeming acceptable? And when are they determining that they need to call into police as they did yesterday?

POLO SANDOVAL, CNN CORRESPONDENT: And that, Jim, is a crucial question that is yet to be answered. That's because what I have witnessed here for the last several days it stands in sharp contrast with what played out on this very lawn just late last week when the president university reached out to the NYPD and requested assistance removing an encampment on these grounds. Yet here we are days later and another encampment has formed. This labeled the Gaza solidarity encampment as they call themselves.

This is a group made up mainly students who are calling on divestment of funds from any companies associated to Israel, from Columbia University.

So that is still an ongoing really effort here that we've been seeing. What has also happened, however, separate is that there has been anticipation of the fears among some Jewish members of the school report feeling uncomfortable and in some cases, even intimidated.

[15:20:05]

I had an opportunity to speak to some of these Jewish students are saying they still are criticizing Columbia University saying it -- not enough is being done to make them feel safe on campus.

Now, Columbia University responded to that, saying that they are certainly acting on these concerns and they are providing support. But what's also interesting here on the ground, Jim, is that there is this effort to really set this demonstration apart from sort of outside instigators. We've heard a similar comment from the president of the university saying it in essence that some of these tensions have been exploited by those with other agendas, and in her own words, and even the organizers of some of these movements here have said that these are individuals two and words do not represent us.

They called individuals that have been assembling some who was assembling off campus basically inflammatory individuals who do not represent. So there is this effort to really set some of these movements apart. The police presence itself, Jim, that you referenced a few moments ago, that actually ends at the gate. It wouldn't be until Columbia University, once again, request assistance from the New York police department, that they can now enter the campus and potentially removing these individuals.

But I have to tell you, we don't see any clear indication of that happening anytime soon, at least not for the encampment that you see behind me, that continues to grow for several days now. But this is part of a larger conversation about what's happening at university campuses throughout the country right now.

SCIUTTO: No question. We plan to continue that conversation this week. Polo Sandoval at Columbia, in New York, thanks so much.

Now to the Middle East, of course, the source of this tension, where a mass grave has now been uncovered at Nasser Hospital, this in Khan Younis in Gaza, two weeks after Israeli forces withdrew from that area, more than 280 bodies some with their feet and hands tied together according to Gaza's civil defense chief. CNN has reached out to Israel's military for a comment or response.

Meanwhile, in Israel, the country's intelligence chief has resigned over failures during the October 7 attacks and leading up. He is the first senior military figure to resign over the handling of the attacks.

Nic Robertson is in Jerusalem, joins us now.

Nic, tell us about this resignation because going back to October 7, there was quite open public conversation in Israel about failures leading up to it warning signs missed. What led to this resignation now?

NIC ROBERTSON, CNN INTERNATIONAL DIPLOMATIC EDITOR: Jim, it's really interesting that the resignation comes now. It's not a surprise that he is resigning, Major General Aharon Haliva.

Why is it not a surprise? Because he himself went down to the area around Gaza, but a week after October 7, and actually talked about the failures, talked about the unit under his command, the intelligence unit had failed in its most basic tasks to the people that they had not done the job that the war was this, this war had begun, begun as a result of an intelligence failure. And he laid out it very explicitly that that was an intelligence unit under his command. So he really did take ownership of it at that moment.

It was sort of in something of a slowdown and a pause in the war in Gaza. A lot of the troops are out. It's far from over, but perhaps this is why were getting this resignation now, we may here for more. He's not out of the job. He's just waiting for his replacement to be assigned before he actually leaves.

But I think this tells you a lot about the military command who've had an investigation, internal investigation to make sure that they don't make similar mistakes because the war is still going on, as opposed to political resignation. So which there have been none and many people would hold the prime minister possible to -- responsible, but to your point, specifically, it was very well-documented that some of the junior staff on the front line, the gathering intelligence, saw Hamas training, even in that paragliders, reported it up the chain of command, and it was ignored, and not acted upon. So it's not a surprise that he's going.

SCIUTTO: The question, of course, do others follow in the coming weeks and months? Nic Robertson in Jerusalem, thanks so much.

And still to come, desperately needed military aid for Ukraine, finally, cleared the House of Representatives this weekend. So how soon will it make its way to the front lines of Ukraine's ongoing defense against the Russian invasion, we're going to be live from Kyiv, coming up next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[15:28:10]

SCIUTTO: Welcome back.

Thank you. America. That was the message from Ukraine's President Volodymyr Zelenskyy on Saturday right after the U.S. House of Representatives passed a long-delayed bill to send billions of dollars of military aid to Ukraine for its defense against the ongoing Russian invasion. This vote came as Ukraine has been running out of ammunition, and shortages of equipment on the front lines also, shortages for critical air defenses, tasked with defending the skies over Ukraine.

Fred Pleitgen is back in key for us.

Fred, you spent a lot of time in Ukraine covering this war. I wonder what the reaction you heard from Ukraine to this vote on Saturday. I know you'd reported in the past that soldiers on the front line, they were skipping the news for headlines from the U.S. Congress. I imagine this was good news to receive.

FREDERIK PLEITGEN, CNN SENIOR INTERNATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Yeah, it certainly is. And you were talking about air defenses just a couple of seconds ago, we are actually under an air raid alert, right now here in Kyiv, that is going on. It's unclear whether or not it's a ballistic missile warning or something like that. But it once again, underscores the fact that the Ukrainians have been saying that they badly need more interceptor missiles to try and keep Russian rockets from hitting infrastructure here in Kyiv. And, of course, in other cities as well, as one of the main things that President Volodymyr Zelenskyy was talking about.

But you're absolutely right. We did speak to soldiers on the front lines, word desk definitely following the news, very closely, who knew exactly that this vote in the House of Representatives was going on. And when it was going on, and who told us afterwards that they up until then had felt almost abandon, not just by the United States, but in general by the allies. And they said that this gave them a whole new boost in morale.

In fact, there was one soldier who I visited in the past who said that this is exactly one of the things that they need because they're running so badly short especially on 155 millimeter artillery ammunition.

[15:30:09]

It's a real problem -- it's been a real problem for them on the southern front line and also on the eastern front line where, of course, we've seen the Russians make some gains that I would say are tactical or not strategic yet. They haven't taken any bigger cities yet. And of course, the Russians are suffering big losses as they're doing.

But the Ukrainians are on the defensive and they've told us that if they had more artillery ammunition, that they would be able to do a much better job defending these places and would be able to hold the Russians up. The belief here is also that once this is signed off by the Senate, or if it signed off by the Senate that ammunition could hit the front lines here very quickly, but one of the key things is also those air defense missiles and Ukrainian say absolutely important for them to get their hands on those as fast as possible, Jim.

SCIUTTO: No question. I mean, it reports because they've been short of it Ukrainian officials have said cities have been hit harder. Fred Pleitgen in Kyiv, keep yourself and your team safe. I want to bring in now Alexander Rodnyansky. He's an economic advisor

to President Zelenskyy, professor at the University of Cambridge.

Alexander, thanks so much for joining.

I wonder if I could begin with your reaction to this house vote finally passing this aid for Ukraine.

ALEXANDER RODNYANSKY, ECONOMIC ADVISER TO PRESIDENT VOLODYMYR ZELENSKYY: Yeah. Well, thank you.

First of all, it's very good news for Ukraine. Obviously, we're waiting for it for a long time. It's critical for military efforts. As you mentioned, it's critical for us to be able to defend ourselves, to support our economy also, and to press on the diplomatic front as well. It strengthens our bargaining position no matter what, no matter how you look at it.

So, it's been long overdue unfortunately, but finally, we've got to sign or passed by Congress. So hopefully, it'll be completed soon.

SCIUTTO: Looking back for a moment, can you help our viewers understand what this delay did to Ukraine, what damage did it do to Ukraine's defense and its position on the front line?

RODNYANSKY: Absolutely. Well, I think you heard that somewhat in your commentary before. First and foremost, we depend on this aid for our military efforts. Obviously, we're lacking the artillery shells, we're lacking all sorts of weapons and equipment to defend ourselves, to keep the frontline essentially from moving against us, to keep the Russians at bay.

And that obviously what's the bill now being passed by Congress that lifts some of the pressure. Hopefully, this aid will come to us sooner rather than later, but also, as you mentioned, it has an effect -- direct effect on the economy and then morale.

Obviously, people feel reinvigorated, and also our economics expectations are going back up because if militarily equal be stronger that means our economy is going to be in a stronger position, will be able to create more jobs. This can be less uncertainty. People will be more willing to invest and to create jobs.

So, this has repercussions, positive effects if you want throughout, no matter how you look at it.

SCIUTTO: Let me ask you this. The administration has told us that they have this aid essentially ready to go once it passes, the Senate gets the presidents signature so which is expected. Basically, it'll be -- it'll be on its on its way.

Do you -- do you have any sense as to how quickly the first portions of this aid will be able to arrive there?

RODNYANSKY: I can't give you exact dates or timeframes. All I know is that preparations have been made for when the bill is going to be passed, that this aid will reach us quicker, rather sooner rather than later, in anticipation that obviously any delay is hurtful and damaging to us at this particular moment when the Russians are on the advanced trying to be on the advance and perhaps even planning a big offensive, as we hear around me.

So this is critical and without the -- I can't tell you the exact dates, but hopefully sooner rather than later.

SCIUTTO: Finally, before we go, I've heard some concern from Ukrainian sources that Russia, which by the way, has been attacking more and more. I should note in recent can weeks as you know, to take advantage of these shortages, but that Russia might strike. Now, before more of this U.S.-supplied aid comes, seeing something of an opportunity, a closing window of opportunity to inflict damage.

Do you do, do President Zelenskyy share that concern?

RODNYANSKY: Well, I can first and foremost, keep for myself, I think that is a possibility. Obviously, they know about what's happening and they will react to it and adapt to it as they've been doing throughout, as both sides has been doing throughout.

So as you say, there's a possibility that while were still waiting for some of these packages and aides and equipment to reach us, they will use that opportunity to push through even more. We'll see what happens there.

Obviously, there obviously other restriction and constraints on these, on these events. They need to be prepared themselves. They need to make sure that everything is in order, but we're observing and it's a constant back-and-forth.

[15:35:04]

So, we'll see what happens.

SCIUTTO: Well, Alexander Rodnyansky, thanks so much for joining us and please do keep safe. I know that the threat there continues.

RODNYANSKY: Thank you.

SCIUTTO: And still to come this hour, Donald Trump's trial. It's keeping him in the courthouse, mostly off the campaign trail. We're going to take a look, next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[15:39:10]

SCIUTTO: Welcome back.

The Trump campaign is taking its cues from his legal team as it reacts to day one of the former president's unprecedented felony trials.

CNN's Alayna Treene has the latest from inside the Trump campaign -- Alayna. (BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

ALAYNA TREENE, CNN REPORTER: Well, Jim, Trump's team is pleased with how his attorneys handled opening statements today, and it's a good example of how Trump views Todd Blanche, his lead attorney in this case.

Blanche has done a really good job at playing the game associated with Donald Trump and essentially, Trump wants lawyers who are aggressive and bold and give the illusion that they are fighting as hard as possible for him. And he feels like Blanche embodies that.

Now, Trump also really likes Todd Blanche and respects him. Now, what Blanche did today with his opening statement was largely used it to preemptively discredit the witnesses expected to take the stand.

[15:40:03]

People like Michael Cohen, Trump's former attorney and fixer, as they called him.

But he also painted Stormy Daniels as someone who was looking for a way to make money off of Donald Trump in the lead-up to the 2016 election.

But, look, when I spoke to Donald Trump's advisers over the weekend, they were really less concerned about today and to opening statements. Instead, they're really focused on what testimony will look like. And we'll see that begin in earnest tomorrow.

And the reason for that, Jim, is because even though Trump's lawyer view this case as the weakest of the four criminal indictments he faces, it's also very personal to Donald Trump. The witnesses are likely to share pretty salacious and quite frankly embarrassing details of the former president. And that's not something Donald Trump wants to on display in the lead up to November.

Now, I do also just want to address a key line we've heard from Trump repeatedly over the past week, which is that he's being kept off the campaign trail due to as required attendance in court. Take a listen to how he put it earlier today.

DONALD TRUMP, FORMER U.S. PRESIDENT & 2024 PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: This is what I got indicted over. This is what took me off and takes me off the campaign trail because I should be in Georgia now. I should be in Florida now. I should be in a lot of different places right now campaigning and I'm sitting here. And this will go on for a long time. It's very unfair.

TREENE: Now, Jim, first of all, you can see Donald Trump was very angry and frustrated. He does not want to be here, or sitting through this.

But to his point about taking them off the trail, it is a major complication for his campaign and that's why he continues to stop and speak to the cameras outside of the courtroom with virtually every opportunity he gets. It's effectively one of the only chances he is going to have to campaign during this trial. Now, he was supposed to have a rally in North Carolina over the weekend on Saturday, and he typically uses those events to air his grievances, but it was canceled due to bad weather.

So that's another dynamic that his team is going to have to reckon with and he's going to continue to use these court appearances as well as events around the New York area to continue to use this to campaign on the sidelines of this trial -- Jim.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

SCIUTTO: Alayna Treene, thanks so much for that report.

We are going to take a short break now. For our international viewers, "LIVING GOLF" is next. And for viewers on Max, we're going to be back with more news right after this commercial.

(LIVING GOLF)