Return to Transcripts main page
CNN Newsroom
CNN International: Judge To Rule On Whether Trump Violated Gag Order; Second Day Of Testimony In Trump Trial. Aired 11a-12p ET
Aired April 23, 2024 - 11:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
[11:00:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
ERICA HILL, CNN HOST: Good morning. Top of the 11 a.m. hour here in New York City. It's Tuesday, April 23. We're live once again in Lower Manhattan outside the courthouse, as jurors prepare to take their seats in Donald Trump's criminal trial. I am Erica Hill. A busy hour ahead for you here. Already a lot to catch you up on in terms of what's happened in just the last 90 minutes, when the judge held a hearing, of course, to determine whether Donald Trump had breached the gag order the judge put in place. We're going to bring you up to speed on where that stands at this hour.
Also, the trial's first witness scheduled to return to the stand in the next few moments. David Pecker is a former publisher of the National Enquirer tabloid. And so, we will bring you more on what is expected for his testimony, come day two, as our coverage of the hush money trial continues.
Donald Trump is now back in court, passing by the cameras, but not speaking, didn't say anything on the way out either about 15 minutes ago when the judge took a break ahead of testimony that's set to begin. That break came. You see these pictures here from just a moment ago, Donald Trump re-entering the courtroom. That break came at the end of a hearing on this gag order and whether or not on multiple occasions Donald Trump in fact violated the gag order. The President's -- the former President's legal team arguing his social media posts don't violate that order. Some pretty spirited moments there, according to what we're seeing from our colleagues inside the courtroom.
As we really get into all of those, also, what we're waiting to happen now, of course, his testimony set to resume. This will be day two of testimony for the very first witness for the prosecution, David Pecker. He is the first witness in this case, a longtime friend of Donald Trump. As I mentioned, the former publisher of the National Enquirer tabloid, prosecutors say he was at the center of this plan to catch and kill any stories that would have been harmful to Donald Trump during the 2016 election cycle.
CNN Senior Crime and Justice Reporter Katelyn Polantz joining me now. So, Katelyn, first, bring us up to speed, before the judge took that break and said he is reserving judgment, reserving his ruling at this point on the gag order, there was a lot of back and forth. The judge seemed to be a little frustrated.
KATELYN POLANTZ, CNN SENIOR CRIME AND JUSTICE REPORTER: Yeah. With Donald Trump's defense attorney, Todd Blanche, who was arguing to him, at one point, he said, he told him point blank, you're losing credibility with the court based on what you're arguing here. But, what is happening, and we don't know what the judge will do yet, is consideration that Donald Trump is in contempt of court, and also a consideration of how much if he is in contempt of court for violating the gag order that the judge imposed on this case on Trump, if that will result in some sort of sanctions.
The prosecutors so far have asked for a fine, and they had compiled 10 instances where Trump was on social media or on his campaign website many times saying that Michael Cohen, a star witness, likely expected to take the stand in this case, calling him a serial perjurer, also calling him and another potential witness Stormy Daniels a "sleazebag". Those things the prosecutors are saying, those were violation of the gag order.
There is also a discussion of whether Trump was intimidating a jury potentially by reposting something that Fox News had said when they were covering juror profiles in this case, and saying that there were undercover liberal activists lying to the judge in order to get on the Trump jury. That is a very troubling post, in the prosecutor's words. They are saying to the judge, make Donald Trump care somehow that there is an order on him that he cannot intimidate witnesses or jurors or others in this case. Please, judge, do something here.
There was quite a bit of different types of arguments coming from Trump's side. One of them was, well, some of the order isn't clear enough. Some of this of what Trump was doing on social media was repost. But, we're going to have to see later what Judge Juan Merchan does with these arguments, with these posts from Trump, with these allegations he violated the gag order. What's next in this case is the judge will come into the courtroom and we'll have three hours of witness testimony now before jury.
HILL: And so, we're going straight through with those three hours because court is ending at two today, ending early, for the Passover holiday.
[11:05:00]
David Pecker will be back on the stand. Just remind us what we heard from him on day one. He wasn't on the stand very long, but enough to establish a couple of important points.
POLANTZ: Right. David Pecker, the former chair of American Media Incorporated, the publisher of the National Enquirer, he has testified about how he was involved in the final decision-making about whether stories would run in that publication, especially involved in stories about celebrities.
One of the things he hasn't extrapolated on yet, but we do expect prosecutors to ask him about, is an October -- or I'm sorry, an August 2015 meeting at Trump Tower where David Pecker sat down with Michael Cohen and Donald Trump himself, and they discussed how the National Enquirer could help Trump in the 2016 campaign. That is the cornerstone or one of the cornerstones of this idea the prosecutors are trying to convince the jury of that Donald Trump was motivated by politics and by his campaign bid in 2016 to pay off Stormy Daniels and other women, and to use a place like the National Enquirer to his campaign's benefit, to his personal benefit, that this is more than just a business records, ledgers, writing checks case, and what those notes and memos are for those expenses. Erica.
HILL: It will be a lot as we dig into that, and we'll be waiting for that testimony to start, should be starting fairly soon. Katelyn, appreciate it. We'll continue to check in with you.
To dig a little deeper here, let's bring in former New York prosecutor Jeremy Saland, who is joining me here just outside the courthouse. Nice to see you. Nice to have you here in person today with me for the hour here. So, when we look at where things stand this morning, I'd love to get your take first of all on what we saw in court between the judge and Donald Trump's legal team this morning when it comes to the potential violation of this gag order. Judge Merchan didn't seem very happy with team Trump.
JEREMY SALAND, FORMER NEW YORK PROSECUTOR: No. No. He was all business, and he said as much he said, you're losing credibility with me. Never want to hear a judge say to you, as an attorney, whether you're a prosecutor or a defense attorney, you are losing credibility with me. Certainly, the defendant himself may or may not. But that, as an attorney, is so critical. That's the foundation of who you are.
HILL: Does it surprise you at all that, given all the back and forth that there was this morning that he said I'm reserving my judgment on this, didn't tell us when we're going to know?
SALAND: Not so much. You can try to read into it, but there is going to be a lot of reasons. For example, he does -- he wants his case to move forward and get Mr. Pecker, David Pecker, on the stand. That's just -- that's not quite a sideshow right now. Maybe at the end of the day, you'll have that ruling, because right now, it's really not relevant to what's happening in that courtroom, when the jurors are here, and then maybe ready to go. So, I don't read into it too much. And it could be something where he says, I may want to penalize him $1,000. I may want to -- I doubt put him in, but I may want to just say you've been warned and going forward.
So, his words are going to be important because he doesn't want Donald Trump to use them and manipulate them outside the courtroom again.
HILL: Do you think he could also further clarify this gag order, so there is a little bit less gray area here?
SALAND: I don't think there is gray area. I think it's very clear. It's the defense attorney's job to advocate for his or her client. So, I don't fault plans for advocating. That's his job. I was a prosecutor. Now, I'm a defense attorney. That's part of the process, like it or not. But, it's still very, very clear. And what has to be established is that there was that order, which we know, and that Donald Trump knowingly violated that order, because you could accidentally do so. But, I think the evidence is clear. And there is an issue possibly about Trump, if he wants, be under oath and say that things that Blanche has said.
HILL: It's what the judge said.
SALAND: Yeah.
HILL: I'd love to hear your client under oath say that he had no idea he was knowingly violating this. Right?
SALAND: That's when he said it's not Trump's burden. It's the people, the prosecution's burden to prove that this happened. If it happened in front, a contempt in front of the judge, the judge can summarily say, you know what? Mr. Trump or whoever it may be, you violated my order. There is a consequence. When it's like this and it's outside the presence, it's like a mini hearing, and there needs to be evidence that needs to be presented.
HILL: Last gag order question, because then I do want to move on to David Pecker. There is a little back and forth and has been historically between Donald Trump and Michael Cohen here. Certainly no love lost between these two at this point. Donald Trump made some comments on camera about Michael Cohen yesterday. Michael Cohen responding on Twitter. I asked this to somebody else earlier. I'm curious your take. Do you think Michael Cohen needs a gag order?
SALAND: Well, he needs a gag order from the prosecution, stop running your mouth because you're going to hurt yourself on that stand.
HILL: Right.
SALAND: You're going to hurt the case and you're going to hurt something far bigger. I think they all should be under a gag order. And when I say that, not just some big over gag order, very limited. Don't talk about the case. Let's deal with this in the four corners of the courtroom. You have enough of the spectacle outside. This is a process we all need to respect. So, I do think there should be something.
HILL: Yeah. It will be interesting see if there is any element on that. Just curious. This is just my own question. When we look at what we can expect from David Pecker today, Katelyn walked us through a little bit of what we heard yesterday, basically from everything I've seen and every legal analyst I've spoken to, they said, yeah, it makes sense to have David Pecker as your first witness.
[11:10:00]
He is going to lay the groundwork here. He is going to talk about this game. He is going to talk about Donald Trump's potential involvement. But, will there be a direct line for Donald Trump? Donald Trump is pretty good about not leaving a paper trail, for example. If there isn't that direct line, does it hurt the prosecution? SALAND: It would certainly hurt the prosecution. We can do it
circumstantially. That being said, there is a paper trail and there is a person trail, and you have a person trail. Whether or not you believe Michael Cohen, whether or not you believe David Pecker, there is a trail. And to the point you mentioned before, all this sort of means nothing unless David Pecker comes in and says, why? What's this intent? Why are we doing this? Otherwise, why are we here? And he lays that foundation. But, look at the person trail, not necessarily the paper trail.
HILL: Does it matter why David Pecker is testifying, the fact that he has immunity?
SALAND: Meaning, I am not clear --
HILL: Well, meaning, so we know that the defense is going to write, which is their job. They're going to try to poke holes in these witnesses --
SALAND: Yeah.
HILL: -- across and they have specifically talked about witness credibility. Focused a lot on Michael Cohen. But, could that also be turned on when you have a witness who we know has an immunity deal --
SALAND: Absolutely.
HILL: -- who is there on the stand? They would, I imagine, try to poke holes, and why are you really here? Is it just to avoid you getting in trouble?
SALAND: Absolutely. But, I say this routinely. You don't know what's happening in that house. You don't know what's going out unless you're part of that. And not that -- I made this reference the other day, not that Donald Trump is a kingpin drug dealer, but you don't know how to get the drug dealer unless you get the guy who is supplying it, who is cutting it, who is working it and selling it. And I hate to use that analogy. But, that's how you don't get a choirboy in the outside telling you what's going on in the inside. You need David Pecker. You need Michael Cohen.
HILL: How do you think he has been so far? I mean, it was only -- it was a short time yesterday. But, just based on what we've heard so far from the courtroom, how is he setting himself up as a witness?
SALAND: I think he is going to be far better and it has been far -- will be far better than someone like Michael Cohen who doesn't have that same baggage. He doesn't have that same agenda. He doesn't have the same conflictual sort of anger and frustration and motive. So, he is going to be the good one to start with that reason, as well, kind of smooth things over, make it a little bit more clear, a little bit more articulate, less bombastic and argumentative.
HILL: And how important is it that he also lays the groundwork for what we've heard is a pattern, right? This was a pattern of your behavior. This is something that we all agreed to in, I think back in August 2015, right, leading into the election, that we were going to make sure that the coverage of Donald Trump was positive, and we were going to catch and kill --
SALAND: Yeah.
HILL: -- any of those stories that were not.
SALAND: It's so important, because it's sort of alleged, not sort of, in fact, alleges is a kind of a conspiracy to impact that election and make sure that bad messages didn't get out, good messages got out, and that Donald Trump was protected. So, it's not just this particular case. It's not just Stormy Daniels. It's the doorman. It's McDougal. There is an ongoing scheme here and that points back to one person who benefits, the one person to benefit is Donald Trump.
HILL: Do you make anything of the fact that Donald Trump, as we know, he enjoys stopping for the cameras on his way into court, out of court every day. This is the first morning he has not directly attacked the case or the judge, instead, talking about more political things, talking about President Biden. It was just interesting to me. Maybe I'm reading too much into it. We spent a lot of time on this as he is heading into that gag order. But, sort of fascinating he didn't talk about the trial this morning.
SALAND: We can think of a couple of different reasons. One is, he is about to go into a gag order proceeding --
HILL: Right.
SALAND: -- and it's a bad look. Another is maybe his attorneys are saying (inaudible). Listen to me now. You can't do this. We have to fight this case in the courtroom. You want to win that election, that's great. We have a job in the courtroom, and if things go sideways here, that can impact you out there. So, be under a little bit more under control. So, that could be one of the things that we can discuss.
HILL: Is it your sense -- and watch this, Todd Blanche is a pretty well-known guy in this area, is it your sense -- and so, my colleagues have been told that Donald Trump really does seem to respect him as an attorney and he is listening to him. Do you see any of that starting to play out in what we're seeing from the way Donald Trump is comporting himself in this particular case versus what else we've seen in the courtrooms in the past?
SALAND: He respects you until he doesn't. So, until it's not favorable to him, until he can point the finger. So, you look at historically people who served on his cabinet, people had issues with. Although, that being said, and then go on trial, he seemed to have a good rapport with his attorneys there because they were being also somewhat bombastic and throwing things out there and making this about politics. This is a different scenario, civil, non-jury, criminal jury, different animals, totally different animals.
So, I think there has got to be a good relationship. There has to be, so that if they can work together, but I would not be shocked if it gets frayed at some point because Donald Trump is going to want to do what Donald Trump wants to do.
HILL: It'll be interesting to see what the judge finds, right, after this hearing on the gag order, and how that may come into play. Another thing I've discussed with a lot of folks this morning is, do you really see anything that could be a true deterrent for Donald Trump if he really wants to take something and get something out there?
[11:15:00]
$1,000 fine, is that really enough?
SALAND: It's not -- first of all, it's -- that's really all they can do --
HILL: Right?
SALAND: -- number one. Number two, that's a cheap way to get your message out to the public, to galvanize your voters $1,000 a pop. That's a lot better than a Super Bowl ad. I mean, it's really economical for him, and it's hitting the masses because everyone is tuned in. And I would even argue that, if the judge put him in, and I don't think that'll happen anytime soon, if at all, that's an enormous win for the martyr Donald Trump.
HILL: Right.
SALAND: So, it's a really no win for the prosecution or the judge here.
HILL: It's such an interesting point, because it is sort of like the cheap advertising, as you were saying, $1,000 fine, versus whatever you may pay for an ad on television. It also plays right into his face and it plays into his message. Right? They're coming after me. I'm not allowed to talk about this, but everybody can talk about me. But, it doesn't really expand his message beyond that face.
SALAND: No. But, I think, again, this is more into the politics and the law.
HILL: Yeah.
SALAND: But, I think that those people who are really consuming that red meat and drinking that Kool-Aid, they're ready to go, and that's when you want to come out and vote. That person on the fence with his country so divided, it's very small man who grew up on the fence --
HILL: Yeah.
SALAND: -- but he is getting those people out mainly to vote. So, would it be shocked? That's why he is doing this.
HILL: Right, if it works for him. As we are looking into day two here with David Pecker, we're going straight through three hours, three hours is a long time for somebody be on the stand --
SALAND: It is.
HILL: -- how much ground do you expect the prosecution will be able to cover?
SALAND: I would expect that David Pecker is not going to be done today. Certainly, that could happen. But, there was a projection, this could be a six-week trial or so. And there is certainly some witnesses who are far less than David Pecker. David Pecker is going to be cross- examined too. And there is no doubt, let me take that comment back, he is not ending today. There is no way he is ending today. I've been wrong before. But, even if the direct was done, he is going to be cross-examined, the things you pointed out --
HILL: Yeah.
SALAND: -- the immunity. Why is he doing this? His involvement, the veracity of what he is saying, how he is connecting the person, even if not the paper to Donald Trump. So, it's going to go on for some time.
HILL: Yeah. All right. We will be -- we're watching it all and pulling it apart with you right here. Jeremy, thank you.
Stay with us. There is much more to come from here in New York City throughout the show. We'll keep you updated on all of that. Just ahead here, David Pecker, as part of his testimony, also shedding some light on the practices at the National Enquirer, so-called checkbook journalism. We'll have more on that. Also bring it up to speed on what's happened so far in court this morning. Our live coverage of Donald Trump's criminal trial continues on the other side of this break.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
HILL: Welcome back to our continuing coverage of Donald Trump's criminal hush money trial here in New York. I'm Erica Hill.
Let's get you up to speed on some of the developments happening in that courthouse just behind me. We're right now waiting to hear from Judge Merchan on his ruling as to whether Donald Trump violated his gag order. Just about half an hour ago or so, he said he was reserving that judgment.
[11:20:00]
It's not clear when he will tell us how he has ruled, where he lands on this. Of course, the prosecution has alleged at least 10 times that the gag order has been breached by the former President, talking about a number of posts on his Truth Social, social media, and also on its campaign website, also an attack on his former attorney, Michael Cohen, who is, of course, a witness in this case, a witness for the prosecution. One prosecutor telling the judge this morning that quote "going after Michael Cohen is a recurring theme." On Monday, Trump continued that theme and perhaps that very public feud when addressing cameras. Take a listen.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DONALD TRUMP (R), FORMER U.S. PRESIDENT AND 2024 PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: And when are they going to look at all the lies that Cohen did in the last trial? He got caught lying in the last trial. So, he got caught lying, pure lying.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HILL: Donald Trump there. So, what happens next? Well, we are -- Judge Merchan, as you see there on your screen, back on the bench, and we will be hearing from David Pecker, who is, of course, the first witness in this case, the former publisher of the National Enquirer, a tabloid magazine, who allegedly alerted the Trump camp to Stormy Daniels' decision that she was wanting to go public with their alleged affair. That then, of course, became what's known as a sort of catch- and-kill, a $130,000 hush money payment. David Pecker, again, first witness to testify in this historic trial. So, we got a little bit earlier today from him.
Brynn Gingras joining us now with more. So, as we wait on this decision on the gag order, it is fair to say the judge was a little bit frustrated toward the end --
BRYNN GINGRAS, CNN U.S. NATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Yeah.
HILL: -- actually a good part of that hearing, but certainly toward the end with the defense --
GINGRAS: Yeah.
HILL: -- as they were going back and forth on whether Donald Trump did or did not know that he was potentially violating the gag order.
GINGRAS: Yeah, because his attorneys are arguing that he needs to be able to defend himself, and that's what he is doing in that gag order. And so, when the judge was asking, well, what is he defending himself against? What are the tweets? Give me some examples. He asked -- he said eight or nine times, and he never got that answer. So, he was clearly frustrated. And it's -- we're learning from our colleagues there, it's worth noting that after this took a break and the judge didn't decide, Trump went on social media and essentially said that this gag order, it shouldn't be in place and this judge should recuse himself. Now, that is not violating the gag order.
HILL: Right.
GINGRAS: But, it's certainly testing the fate for someone who hasn't yet decided to speak on how he stands about this guy.
HILL: Yes. And his team has motion to force for the judge to recuse himself.
GINGRAS: Yeah.
HILL: That was the first orders of business.
GINGRAS: Yeah.
HILL: Long time ago, last week, on the first day of the hearing, when the judge said, nope, not recusing myself.
GINGRAS: Yeah.
HILL: I'm denying that motion. It's important, though, as you point out, attacking the judge actually does not violate the gag order.
GINGRAS: Right.
HILL: Basically, the judge and the DA, he can say things about. It's everybody else involved here --
GINGRAS: Correct.
HILL: -- who falls under that gag order, witnesses, the jury, court staff.
GINGRAS: Yeah. And it continues, and that's the argument from the prosecution is that Donald Trump will not stop, and it sort of shows, even though he is not violating it with that tweet, he is persistent, and that's something that's bothering the prosecution. And they said, in his tweets that he is attacking a jury. He is attacking Michael Cohen. In fact, they said they're going to file a new motion based on the sound you just played for our viewers that they're going to file another gag order violation against that exact sound. So, we don't know the details of it. But, they said that's coming. So, certainly, this sounds like something that might be coming up multiple times throughout this trial.
HILL: Yeah. It sounds like it just may.
GINGRAS: Yeah.
HILL: We now move on, though, to testimony. So, we have --
GINGRAS: Yeah.
HILL: -- three straight hours because the court is ending early to the Passover holiday.
GINGRAS: Right.
HILL: So, we could get a lot out of David Pecker potentially on the stand today.
GINGRAS: Yeah. And yesterday, he was, what, 30 minutes, he was on the stand. He is the first witness. He is subpoenaed there. He has immunity for his testimony because prosecutors essentially are saying he is a co-conspirator in this trial that he is part of this scheme with Donald Trump and the former fixer Michael Cohen to have these hush money payments, disguised as illegal payments, to Michael Cohen, to basically keep all that negative press out of -- particularly about Stormy Daniels out of the press, so that Donald Trump doesn't look bad to the media, well, to the public, rather -- HILL: The voter. Thank you.
GINGRAS: -- while that 2016 election was going on. So, I imagine we're going to hear more about how David Pecker, not only did this for the Stormy Daniels incident, but in other instances. Right? We've learned about that doorman who claims that Donald Trump fathered a child. That was one salacious story. Another one was with another former playmate Karen McDougal. So, I imagine we'll learn more exactly what David Pecker's involvement has been with his friendship with Donald Trump.
HILL: And it will be interesting to see what he says the former President's involvement was to.
GINGRAS: Yeah.
HILL: Brynn, thank you.
Also with us right now, I believe David Weinstein is with us, as we talk through a little bit of this testimony that we're expecting today. David, good to see you, as always. I'm just curious your take on what we heard, as Brynn pointed out, only about half an hour on the stand yesterday for David Pecker. How did the prosecution do in establishing, even in that short period of time, establishing him as a credible witness, in your view?
DAVID WEINSTEIN, FORMER STATE & FEDERAL PROSECUTOR: I think that the defense is not going to attack his credibility necessarily, Erica. And I think that what the prosecution wants out of him is to give these jurors a view of the inside of this conspiracy.
[11:25:00]
As you mentioned, he has been given immunity for his testimony. He has been brought to court. He is compelled to testify, and he is asked to give truthful testimony. So, what the prosecution wants him to do is to say, I was there on the inside in the, as we would say, the room where it happened, and be able to establish what the defendant knew about what was going on his involvement in the conspiracy and his intentional participation. And so, that's what the prosecution wants to do. And so far, they've done based on what's been reported a pretty good job about that. The question becomes, how is the cross- examination going to go, and will he wilt, not necessarily under the pressure, but under his desire to do something favorable for someone who was a friend of his?
HILL: And as we wait for that, before we get there, I can let everybody at home know that he is now back on the stand, as you can see. Examination underway with the assistant district attorney there. Part of what they're going to want to establish the prosecution as they're building this case, is showing his involvement, but also trying to get him to speak really specifically to the involvement of Donald Trump.
WEINSTEIN: Correct. And again, it's not so much what he did, what Cohen did, or what others did that's important. That's part of the conspiracy. And as a co-conspirator, you are held accountable for the actions of your co-conspirators. But, they want to show what it was? Who was the person who was directing this? Who was the person that was pushing this forward? And what was Trump's involvement? How active a participant was he? Did he ever tell them, no, don't do that? That's not the way I want to do it. Did he ever attempt to withdraw from this conspiracy? Or was he right up till the end, an active participant in this conspiracy, both the cover-up, how they were going to then characterize the payments?
And so, he is a good witness to start this all off, because he was there for a substantial part of the planning of this particular portion of the conspiracy.
HILL: He is also talking now being asked how long he has known Donald Trump. He says since the late 80s. Points him out in the in the courtroom, the fact that they do have such a history, but that he is now testifying against his longtime friend. We know he has immunity. That is something a defense may try to use against him. But, to your point, he is probably not the one they want to poke as many holes in, perhaps. There will be more of that coming with Michael Cohen.
The fact that they were good friends for so long, is also interesting, especially as we've learned yesterday from him. He had two different email accounts. They tried to set up all of the phone numbers. Do you remember all the phone numbers that you use, saying that one email account he used was for private emails, work events were in an another one, a general email, but that private email was things he didn't want his assistant to see, setting it up as if that's clearly going to be involved somewhere here, that private email account?
WEINSTEIN: Well, not only his private email account and some messages that were exchanged back and forth on that one, but to sort of set the stage for, look, if you do that, and you're directing other co- conspirators to send those emails to that second private secret email account, we have to presume that the defendant is doing the exact same thing, and that this is not his first time being involved with something where he wants to present one image out front and in public and another behind the scenes type of image.
I think you're right. We're going to see some emails that came in on that secret email account, that private email account, and the prosecution will show who is copied on that. Are we going to see another email for the former President? Are we going to see Michael Cohen using different email accounts? Again, setting the stage here for this collective pattern and practice of deception, of deceit and getting to the heart of this, which is the falsification of records, and setting the stage for a pattern and practice of the defendant doing that not only right here, but for decades, apparently, perhaps as long as they were friends.
HILL: Yeah. And he is going through some of that relationship right now, even talking about an idea he had to create a magazine in the late 80s called "Trump's Style", an idea he presented to the former President. He liked it a lot. But, wanted to know, who was going to pay for it?
We're going to take a quick break here. David, thank you. When we return, we'll continue to update you on what is happening in the courthouse behind me, as David Pecker takes the stand now for a second day in the hush money trial of Donald Trump. Stay with CNN.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[11:30:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
HILL: Welcome back. You're watching live coverage from Lower Manhattan. We are outside the courthouse here where the hush money trial for Donald Trump is continuing. We are now on day six, but it is day two for witness testimony. Jurors right now are hearing again from David Pecker. He is the former publisher of the National Enquirer, who allegedly helped to broker the deal with adult film star Stormy Daniels, which got us here today.
The day began with plenty of drama, no jury in the room for this hearing. But, the judge holding a hearing on the gag order that he had put in place for the former President, and the multiple violations, as the prosecution says, they have seen on the part of Donald Trump. A frustrated warning from the judge, telling one of Trump's attorneys at one point, quote, "You're losing all credibility with the court." Judge Juan Merchan said he is reserving a decision on that -- those alleged violations, and whether Trump is in contempt of court. So, as we wait for that, David Pecker, again, back on the stand now, in being questioned.
I want to bring in CNN Senior Crime and Justice Reporter Katelyn Polantz, who is live in Washington. So, as this is going on, there was a short break. Donald Trump wasting no time, getting back out there on Truth Social, talking about the judge, some points of this case. It's important to note the gag order does not include a ban on him talking about the judge or the DA, Katelyn.
POLANTZ: Yeah. Erica, there is a couple of things Donald Trump is very unhappy about having this judge presiding over this trial, Judge Juan Merchan. He is able to comment about that. Being on trial, he is very unhappy about that. And he is able to proclaim his innocence as he sees it on social media or publicly in campus. He paints it just however he wants. And the third thing is he is very unhappy. He is not out on the campaign trail. Now, tomorrow, there will be a break in the action. He is not going to be in trials on Wednesdays or on the weekends. But, Trump is repeating these things over and over again.
That is not what the hearing this morning was about, Erica. The hearing this morning was about a series of posts Donald Trump has made about Michael Cohen, his personal -- former personal attorney, who is likely to be a star witness in this case where Trump called him a sleazebag and serial perjurer, and a post that he had made about the jury in this case, putting forward, pointing to Fox News commentary that there were liberal activists on the jury that also highlighted the identification -- identifying information that had been made public in court about some of the jurors. We will see what the judge does with these allegations of violating the gag order on this case. The prosecutors want a fine of $1,000 against Trump every time he violated the gag order, they say at least 10 times. We will see too if the judge does anything to clarify the gag order.
[11:35:00]
One of the things Trump's attorney took issue with was that it didn't specify how to grapple with a repost on social media or Trump parroting something someone else in the right-wing commentariat had said. We're waiting to see what the order is there. It could be written or it could come later today. But, right now, we're in witness testimony from David Pecker, the former chair of American Media Incorporated. He is talking about his longstanding relationship with Donald Trump, something he calls mutually beneficial. And he will be on the stand until 2 p.m.
HILL: And we'll be watching and getting a little bit more from him right now talking about, as you pointed out, how long they've known each other. And that in the starting in 2015, as they started to see each other, once he announced he was running for President, I saw Mr. Trump more frequently, maybe once a month. We're feeling we'll be digging into that. Katelyn, thank you. Don't go far. I know you won't. We won't let you go far.
Also back with us here, Jeremy Saland. So, as we look at this too and we're running through, we're getting a little bit of the timeline here. It is notable, he said that David Pecker being -- he talking about how long they've known each other, how close they were, and that they have been friendly for some time, saying I called him Donald. We are close friends here. How often they would see one another? The fact that once Trump announced he was running for President, they would see each other perhaps more frequently, maybe once a month. This is also, when allegedly in 2015, when this idea was hatched with Michael Cohen, a part of that, to make sure that any negative stories about Donald Trump stayed out of the press, only positive things in the National Enquirer.
SALAND: Right. And it's really important to start out to show that this is not an adversarial relationship. There is no issue that they'd have a problem. He is an affluent man, just like Donald Trump. He is not competition for Donald Trump. Mutually beneficial, I think, was a term we found in there. So, it's great to set that first witness up who sets the stage, as we discussed before, but also sets the tone is not such Stormy Daniels, not the Michael Cohen.
HILL: And to that point, he also, just a short time ago, they were talking about the apprentice, and he was saying, David Pecker was saying, Oh, I thought the apprentice was a great show and we would publish the ratings information. We would talk about how well it was doing. And that didn't cost Donald Trump anything, but it sure got him a lot.
SALAND: Absolutely. Who doesn't want to hear great things about himself more than Donald Trump? So, by the National Enquirer doing that, it shows the relationship, and it shows I'm lifting you up. I'm your friend, I'm on your team. There is no reason why I'm obviously now going to be coming after you other than for the truth.
HILL: Right. And so, as this is all playing out, to your point, they're putting this together, talking about this mutually beneficial relationship that they had, which then gets to the point of, how this turns into something else, which is what the prosecutor is trying to set up here and to lay out. How this relationship changed? I guess one of the questions would end up being, why would David Pecker want to be involved in that?
SALAND: Well, access is always an important thing. Right? Who doesn't want access to someone who very well could be and ultimately did become the President of the United States? He was invited to, I think it was a holiday party. Not that that's why you would do it, but this access is important. And if history is right, and what we learned about Donald Trump in the media is correct, may or may not be, things are sometimes changed, his stories evolve from the apprentice to other shows, but he seems to favor and like the people he likes. And he is very good to them until he is not. If you look at his former Attorney General Barr, he was his best man in that White House until he wasn't. So, that's where David Pecker was for a long, long time.
HILL: What are you looking for most today? I mean, we were talking earlier. This is certainly not David Pecker's second and last day on the stand. He will, of course, also be under cross-examination. What are you looking for, though, in today's testimony?
SALAND: I'm looking for him to start connecting the dots. You don't want this to be the Michael Cohen show. That's what the defense wants. They want it to be the Michael Cohen show. They want it to be the Stormy Daniels show. They're the ones perpetrating the fraud -- fraud, pardon me. They're not being prosecuted for this. I am. So, you have someone who is less animated and has less of that agitation who to starts to connect. Well, yes. This is the conversation I had with Michael Cohen. This is how this all started. I was in that room. So, it's setting that stage, setting that foundation. Even if he doesn't have the exact homerun hit, his piece of that puzzle that corroborates the others.
HILL: I'm also just looking at -- I'm also -- as we're talking to him, looking --
SALAND: Yeah.
HILL: -- at some of the updates that we're getting from inside the courtroom, talking about -- sitting in Donald Trump's office when his assistant, who we've heard a lot about, would walk in and give him invoices and checks to sign. So, this is going to be key here. David Pecker says I noticed that he reviewed the invoice and looked at the check and then sign them, right, as opposed to just saying, hey, look, yeah, it's my business. But, I trust -- the people I have who worked for me, I put them in those positions to do certain jobs, which a lot of bosses would say. I'm signing the checks because I trust their brain to be the right step. He was checking it first.
SALAND: And it's not just a check, someone like him who is a CEO and runs a business and is frugal with his money and it's all about his money. Even me, on a much less stage, I'm looking at the check. It's a retainer for somebody.
[11:40:00]
What's this for? Why am I paying $5,000? Why am I paying $10,000? Why am I paying $100,000? I want to know what this is for. And one would assume that he understands why he is paying his bills. He is not just some early saying, OK, I'll pay it, pay it, pay it.
HILL: Right.
SALAND: Well, what is this? Why am I paying Michael Cohen?
HILL: Yeah.
SALAND: So, it's a good piece of evidence.
HILL: All right.
SALAND: It's that brick by brick by brick.
HILL: Right. We're going to continue to look at those bricks. Stay with us.
Much more to come here, from judging the case to jugging the mood among voters, rather. Is this really having any impact on voters? Is it all baked in? What could it mean for Donald Trump? Stick around.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
HILL: And there you go. I'm sure you recognize this building by now. It is my backdrop here. That is a little wider shot of it, Manhattan criminal court where we are outside. Of course, Donald Trump is inside back in the courtroom now. The first witness, David Pecker, who was a longtime friend of Donald Trump, is on the stand now for a second day, and he is talking about Donald Trump as a businessman, what he noticed in all the years that he would know him as he was in his office, and Donald Trump's assistant would bring in invoices and checks to be signed. How closely Donald Trump would go through those invoices and look at those checks before signing them, talk about -- talking about how frugal he was and how cautious he was as a businessman.
This, of course, as the prosecution is looking to make its case. We'll be continuing to follow that testimony as well throughout the day. Donald Trump stopping for the cameras on his way into court this morning, but with a much different message than what we've seen over the last several days where he typically stops at the camera, rails against the case, may rail against the judge. Today, he avoided both of those things, not discussing either one, perhaps because he was heading into a hearing about whether he had violated a gag order in this case for talking about witnesses or the jury. But, interesting that those comments change.
Republican Strategist Alice Stewart is with me now, CNN political commentator. Alice, as we look at all this, he has also -- Donald Trump complained when he was making his way into court on most days, that this is keeping him off the campaign trail, that it is unfair. He has, though, been using pretty effectively those cameras to do a little bit of campaigning each day. Today, it was far more political than what we've seen in the past. Does that surprise you?
ALICE STEWART, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: No. I think, again, he is, as you say, Erica, he is using every opportunity he has to get his message out there and this plays to his base. Right? It works with his base. They believe what he is saying that he is a victim of overzealous prosecutors, that this is a witch hunt. This is a hoax. And these are -- this is a weaponization of the DoJ to go after him because he is a threat to Joe Biden, and his base beliefs that. Right? Democrats look at this more as he is getting exactly what he deserves. The question politically is, the independent voters and the late deciders here, how are they viewing this, and how are they going to absorb what he is saying, as he goes in and out of the courtroom?
[11:45:00]
Right now, it appears they're just more concerned with other issues based on the polls. They're not tuned in to the day-by-day antics going on in the courtroom. But, the question is, if there is a conviction? That would be a game changer, according to the polls, based on what we're hearing. But, across the board, when you ask people the choice for President, the poll is tight, super tight, 47 to --
HILL: Yeah.
STEWART: -- 47. So, it can't get much tighter than that when it comes to who voters want for President.
HILL: No. Basically, a dead heat, and that slice of the pie that really is up for grabs is pretty small. Alice. So, to your point, a lot of this, we won't know the impact until this trial concludes. So, in the interim, how important is the messaging? We're seeing what the Democrats are doing. We're also seeing that a lot of Republicans are actually preferring to talk about the trial, as opposed to other issues which have not played well for them, specifically reproductive rights and abortion.
STEWART: Look, I think -- I've always said his message that he is giving in and out of the courtroom plays well to the base, but he needs to talk about what people are talking about, and that is the economy. That is the border. That is crime. That is national security. And my advice would be, every time he has the opportunity, and he has the microphones of the world at its disposal, talk about those issues, because the voters trust Donald Trump's policies more than Joe Biden's policies on those key issues, which are the economy, border and national security.
That very reason is why we have President Biden out in Florida today, talking about abortion, talking about Donald Trump being a threat to democracy. He is talking about issues that he wants to talk about because he knows that he is underwater on the key issues that are top of mind for voters for the next several months.
HILL: I was -- still with us, Jeremy, I want to bring you in as well. So, you've been monitoring Donald Trump's Truth Social posts in just these last few minutes. We knew that he had come out and he was railing against the judge. He is going on back to all caps and really railing of the justice system.
SALAND: Yeah. And it's really upsetting, to put it nicely. One of the things he said about 45 minutes ago is the constitutional rights to free speech. Everybody is allowed to talk and lie about me. But, he isn't allowed to defend himself and the judge to recuse himself. To say that that's been stripped from him is such a lie and a misnomer. And what it's doing, it's allowing people to sort of imbibe on and swig on this noxious, untruth that really caught people's view of the criminal justice system. And there is very few things in this nation that are so important than the criminal justice system, always the prosecution's burden.
He has absolutely unequivocally innocent until proven guilty. But, what he does outside that courtroom has lasting and dramatic impacts across the entire United States, no matter whether you're in New York, Alabama, Georgia, California, and it is deplorable, to put it nicely. And this is where his attorneys need to grab him, if they were really doing what was right, and say, you have to stop.
HILL: But, I would point out, this is also a consistent message that he has repeatedly railed against the justice system, what he sees as a corrupt system.
SALAND: Absolutely.
HILL: Anytime he is charged with something, it's unfair against him. I want to bring David Weinstein in on this conversation too. Picking up on your point, Jeremy, when we're looking at where they sit, the message that goes out there is what he wants in terms of that message. But, David, also, in terms of his attorneys being able to control that, how damaging could this be for him moving forward, especially on the day that we're waiting to hear from the judge about the gag order?
WEINSTEIN: Erica, very damaging. The biggest problem the attorneys have in this case is not necessarily confronting the evidence and the witnesses but controlling their client. As you've mentioned before, you have a judge who told everyone that he was considering what he was going to do, how much he was going to fine him, setting this up potentially down the road for incarceration for a continual violation of a direct order. And then, the person who is a subject of all of this steps outside and starts railing against the judge. He is allowed to do that. But, he doesn't seem to hear what's going on. And his lawyers are having a very tough time controlling him. And he is not a person who likes to be in -- be controlled, rather. And quite frankly, that's what's playing against him during this trial.
We've heard the witness on the stand, David Pecker, testify that Trump wanted to know what was going on. He micromanaged. He saw what was going on. And so, we're seeing an example of this in testimony in court, and then how he acts outside the courtroom, and it's a dangerous combination.
HILL: It's also important to look at, as he is railing against -- this is violating my free speech, there has come in multiple times about where does political speech fall under free speech, and is anything that you say if you say it's political, is that automatically protected?
SALAND: Well, not necessarily, just furthering a crime for example.
HILL: Right.
SALAND: So, it's not the situation.
[11:50:00]
And I just want to -- before we just get off this topic, one of the other issues I think is tomorrow or the next day, which will happen, when somebody misbehaves in a courtroom, if Donald Trump could do it and nothing happened, why I have to respect the process? That's another big problem. It's not just the belief in the system. It's the behavior within the system. So, I just want to point that out. But, yes, not all free speech is created equal.
HILL: Right. And also -- so, to your point, everybody needs to be treated equal under the justice system.
SALAND: Absolutely.
HILL: And so, if in a different court room, in a different city or town --
SALAND: Yeah.
HILL: -- someone says, if Donald Trump could do this, it raises an interesting point.
We're going to continue the discussion in just a moment. Stay with us. A quick break here.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
HILL: Welcome back. I want to bring back now CNN Senior Crime and Justice Reporter Katelyn Polantz. Katelyn, as we're looking at some of the testimony that we're seeing here, it's fascinating to me, David Pecker talking about an email that Michael Cohen sent to him to attend the event where Donald Trump announced that he was running for President. We're really getting a look into their relationship, their friendship over the decades, and also just how much visibility he had to Donald Trump as Donald Trump the business person.
POLANTZ: Yeah, Erica. Three things the prosecutors have done so far with David Pecker. Yesterday, they established who he was and why he was important, how much control he had over his publications and stories like about Donald Trump and celebrities. And then, today, they built out in his initial testimony his relationship with Trump, how far they went back, the sort of mutually beneficial relationship that they had established, where the National Enquirer covered Trump, Trump shared information, mutually beneficial, is what prosecutors said.
And then now, they're building out a portrait for the jury the network that David Pecker was part of in supporting Donald Trump, not just his connection to Trump himself, but also to people like Michael Cohen, Trump's personal attorney, who is likely to come up later in this case, as well as others, Hope Hicks. He says on the stand he also is aware of and knows. That was a former very top campaign communications advisor in Trump's campaign in 2016.
So, this is all building. That's how this questioning is going to work, question by question. Prosecutors are going to put the building blocks of what David Pecker knows. They're going to then bring in the evidence just now a email that was between David Pecker and Michael Cohen about him attending an event. This is all moving toward what we know the prosecutors want to tell the jury about. That is a crucial meeting in August of 2015 where Donald Trump, David Pecker and Michael Cohen, all sit down to talk about how National Enquirer could benefit or help Donald Trump as a presidential candidate and his campaign, really the cornerstone of these hush money and catch-and-kill type schemes that prosecutors say led Trump to falsify business records illegally. Erica.
HILL: Right. So, as they're laying all that groundwork, it's fascinating. I just want to note too, he had also been talking about Donald Trump as a businessman and how closely he was looking at invoices, how closely he was looking at checks when they were brought to him to be signed when David Pecker would be in Donald Trump's office. That's also laying some important groundwork to about how involved Donald Trump was.
POLANTZ: Right.
[11:55:00]
One of the things that the prosecutors have to do here in this witness testimony is make sure that they are placing the people in the room right around Trump. You can't have what's called hearsay or a separation between these things. So, the more they can get into detail of exactly how David Pecker was in touch with Trump, when he -- what he was seeing from him, how Trump was paying for things, at one point in his testimony, David Pecker also said that Trump was quite frugal, and he knew how Trump handled money. That's going to become more and more important as this trial goes on. And prosecutors try and prove to the jury it was Trump making the calls about the money and he was taking very close watch of it as well.
HILL: Paying very close watch and also very intent on the stories that would be running. That's being discussed in the stand right now. We're going to take a break here. Katelyn, thank you, as always. Thanks to all of you for joining us over the last several hours as we continue to cover these developments from Donald Trump's trial here in New York City. I'm Erica Hill. My colleague Jim Sciutto picks up after a quick break.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
