Return to Transcripts main page
CNN Newsroom
CNN INTERNATIONAL: Trump Faces Hush Money Trial; U.S. Supreme Court Hears Arguments In Trump Immunity Case; College Protests Over Gaza Sweep Across America; Donald Trump's Hush Money Trial Resumes In Supreme Court; David Pecker Testifies In Trump Trial On Day Three; Historic Implications Of Trump's Critical Legal Day; Arguments In Trump Supreme Court Immunity Dispute Now Over; Russia's War On Ukraine; U.S. Sending Ukraine "Significant Stocks Of Ammunition"; Dramatic Rescue In Australia Saved The Lives Of Dozens Of Pilot Whales. Aired 2-3p ET
Aired April 25, 2024 - 14:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
[14:00:00]
JIM SCIUTTO, CO-HOST, CNN NEWSROOM: CNN's special coverage, I'm Jim Sciutto in Washington. We are following Donald Trump's two crucial legal cases today here in Washington. The Supreme Court has finished hearing the oral arguments in the case over whether former President Donald Trump can claim virtually limitless immunity in his federal election subversion case.
OMAR JIMENEZ, CO-HOST, CNN NEWSROOM: And I'm Omar Jimenez in New York outside the Manhattan courthouse where the criminal hush money trial is underway. We're going to have much more in both of these stories ahead this hour.
But let's start here in New York, the third day of testimony in Donald Trump's criminal hush money trial is set to resume in just a few minutes on the tail-end of a lunch break right now. And now earlier, the prosecution opened old wounds about Trump's alleged affairs.
Former tabloid publisher David Pecker has been testifying, and talked about what he did to stop news stories that were hostile to the former president, but not at the time. Pecker explains to the jury how the so-called "catch and kill" deal worked for former "Playboy" model Karen McDougal story.
And that Trump allegedly thanked Pecker for quote, "handling the McDougal situation". Text messages in court were shown involving Pecker and a former "National Enquirer" editor. One message explained how Stormy Daniels wanted $120,000 for her story, and how the editor couldn't pay it at the time, but that they could quote, "lock it on publication now to shut down the media chatter."
So, a lot to talk about here. Joining us now is former White House ethics czar, and special counsel in Trump's first impeachment trial, Norm Eisen. Norm, really appreciate you being here. So, just give me your first impressions with -- do you think that Pecker has been an effective witness for the prosecution so far in direct examination? NORM EISEN, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: Omar, he has been.
JIMENEZ: Yes.
EISEN: Inside the courtroom. He established all of the elements that the prosecution is going to need if they hope to be successful now. We're only half-way there because he's going to be cross-examined now. But he testified about the formation of the agreement to influence the election.
You and I have discussed the prosecution wants to say this is no hush money case, this is a very important election interference one. And then he took us through the execution of that agreement, paying off a door man, Dino Sajudin, Karen McDougal, and leading up to Stormy Daniels, where he chose not to make the Stormy payment.
We'll hear later from Michael Cohen and others. But what you have there is the elements that he's established of the prosecution case -- hey, Donald Trump arranged a scheme to pay people off to benefit his campaign to avoid scandal, so, he could win the election. If they prove that beyond a reasonable doubt, that is a very serious predicate for the felonies that are here -- an issue.
JIMENEZ: And one of the things that we've heard Pecker testify to this point is that at least, in Karen McDougal's case, is that he knew at the time that what he was doing was likely illegal as far as the payment part of it, and that he likely would not have done it if he didn't think it would benefit Trump ahead of the election. How critical is that piece of testimony to the prosecution's case?
EISEN: It's very important because what you had today in the testimony was Pecker testifying that they set up the payoff to Karen McDougal, but then for legal reasons --
JIMENEZ: Yes --
EISEN: Namely campaign finance violations, which is what the prosecutors are alleging here. He pulled back and he told Michael Cohen tear it up.
JIMENEZ: Yes.
EISEN: So, that was very -- that was a very dramatic testimony. And then of course, you had a number of direct communications positive and negative between Pecker and Donald Trump that came into evidence. So, that is direct proof of Trump's state of mind.
JIMENEZ: Yes, and I know you touched on a little bit here, but frame this for us because look, obviously, you know, it's been built in many places as the hush money trial. Obviously, the "catch and kill" schemes are a major component of this particular trial, but it really is around potentially changing the results of an election, right?
[14:05:00]
At the very least, influencing people's opinions ahead of an election. EISEN: That's right. That's what prosecutors are arguing. And they've
--
JIMENEZ: Yes --
EISEN: Made a good jump in establishing the foundation for that case. Again, we'll see how Pecker holds up on cross --
JIMENEZ: Sure --
EISEN: Examination. What prosecutors are saying is that Donald Trump deceived voters to grasp power and then covered it up. So, that is the same structure as the allegations that we're up at the United States Supreme Court case of 2020 election interference today saying here, this is the 2016 variety, and that it is 34 felony document falsification counts here because Donald Trump wanted to hide his effort to influence the 2016 election.
JIMENEZ: Yes, and you've mentioned a critical point that we've really only heard the strategy from the prosecution so far in the direct examination portion of it. As you and I know, sometimes jurors get a different impression upon a cross-examination as they try to poke some holes there.
Norm Eisen, really appreciate you taking the time --
EISEN: Thanks so much.
JIMENEZ: I know you've been popping in and out, so, I don't want to hold you too long. I also, though, want to bring in Katelyn Polantz, who has been following this story for us and covering this for us. Katelyn, as we were talking about, look, we've seen direct examination to this point that will likely continue after this lunch break.
We started to get a little bit into the Stormy Daniels portion of it all. What more are we expecting to hear today and what more is left for us to hear as far as the gag order goes?
KATELYN POLANTZ, CNN SENIOR CRIME & JUSTICE REPORTER: Well, we don't have an order from the judge on the gag order. The fallout that Donald Trump should face now. The prosecutors say he's broken that order, not to talk about witnesses, jurors, and others in the case.
They say 14 times he's violated that, we're waiting to see what the judge does there. That's one thing. Separately, the other thing that's going on is more discussion with David Pecker, more testimony from David Pecker on the witness stand today.
We have a little bit more from the prosecutors where he is, Omar, going to be still talking to the jury about that "catch and kill" scheme as it relates to Stormy Daniels. He's laid out the three "catch and kill" situations where people came forward with alleged affairs with Trump or about them to the National Enquirer", and then the "National Enquirer" got in touch with Michael Cohen, knowing that the campaign would suffer and that Trump would suffer as a presidential candidate if those stories were made public in this circumstance. David Pecker is putting Donald Trump in the room on some of these
conversations about caching stories and burying them. The Stormy Daniels one, he is going to be painting the picture of all of the conversations he had with them. So, Omar, that is what we expect to hear as the testimony wraps up as prosecutors are asking questions.
But then, there will be a defense cross. And that is when the defense team stands up, they'll ask David Pecker additional questions to try to -- what's called impeach him or destroy his credibility, hurt some of the statements that he made before the jury -- have the jury reconsider, how they think about what he testified to.
We'll have to see how that goes. We do know that he has a plea deal or an immunization deal with the government as someone who's being forced to testify in this case. And also on top of that, we know the defense team wants to highlight for the jury his motivations as a newspaper publisher in these stories and handling of them. So where that goes, it's almost certain David Pecker won't be done on the stand today.
JIMENEZ: Yes, Katelyn. Incredible reporting. Thank you for bringing that. And Jim, as we have talked about, and as Norm has spoken about too, you know, it's been billed the hush money trial in some cases, but really, if prosecutors make the case, it is really also about election interference here, and we're now much more on this as the day continues.
SCIUTTO: That's right, to hide information from voters during the 2016 election. All right, now to the U.S. Supreme Court where equally, arguably, even higher stakes in a historic case there. It may not only decide Donald Trump's legal fate also could have a major impact on the November presidential election.
Justices heard arguments today as they weigh Trump's broad claim that he cannot be criminally prosecuted for, among other things, trying to overturn the 2020 election, because he argues he has absolute presidential immunity. That argument has already been flatly rejected by a federal appeals court.
Special counsel Jack Smith says the theory has no grounding in the constitution, and that election subversion, the case against the former president should move forward.
[14:10:00]
CNN's Marshall Cohen is with us now. And Marshall, listening to these arguments this morning, it struck me as well as Shan Wu who I was speaking to at the time, just how broadly Trump's lawyer was claiming the immunity goes. Even as he was pushed on instances like a president orders SEAL team six to take out an opponent might be covered under --
MARSHALL COHEN, CNN REPORTER: Yes --
SCIUTTO: Immunity, sells --
COHEN: Yes -- SCIUTTO: Nuclear secrets to an adversary might be covered under
immunity. Stages a coup. Tell us how far that argument went and how the justices responded to that argument?
COHEN: Well, you know, Jim, you guys are absolutely right to point out how broad they started, but by the end of the hearing, there were some serious concessions from Donald Trump's attorneys on which parts of this indictment cover official actions of a president that can't be prosecuted.
And some parts, they conceded perhaps for the first time where actually unofficial actions that theoretically could be included in an indictment. But the bottom line here, Jim, was that it really was a mixed bag from the Supreme Court.
It appears based off of the tone and tenor of the exchanges and the questions, it looks like the Supreme Court is prepared to reject Donald Trump's sweeping that incredibly broad immunity claim. But at the same time, there are also -- it appears not yet ready to give a complete green light to special counsel Jack Smith to move forward with this 2020 federal election subversion case as the indictment is currently written, as the case currently stands.
It looks like they may be looking for a middle ground, Jim, where they would send this case back to the lower courts to adjudicate out which of these actions were official, which of these actions were unofficial. There are also some other options that the special counsel could use to try to leap-frog that and slim down the indictment and just focus on the stuff that everyone agrees is unofficial to try to move this along.
But Jim, I want to play for you a clip from the oral arguments. It started with a lot of skepticism heading in the direction of Donald Trump. But by the second hour of arguments, the tide definitely turned. and there were some really tough questions for Michael Dreeben, who represents the Justice Department, represents the special counsel. He is a seasoned veteran.
He's been at the Supreme Court so many times, and he faced some really sharp questions from none other than Justice Alito, one of the most conservative on the bench. Listen to this.
(BEGIN AUDIO CLIP)
SAMUEL ALITO, ASSOCIATE JUSTICE OF THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES: Can we just briefly review the layers of protection that you think exists? There's the old czar about indicting a ham sandwich --
MICHAEL DREEBEN, SOLICITOR, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE: Yes, but I think justice --
ALITO: I mean, you have a lot of experience in the Justice Department. You come across a lot of cases where the U.S. attorney or another federal prosecutor really wanted to indict a case and the grand jury refused to do so.
DREEBEN: There are such cases --
ALITO: Is that right? Yes --
DREEBEN: Yes. But I think that the other ones --
ALITO: Pretty much in a while, there's an eclipse too.
(END AUDIO CLIP)
COHEN: So, Jim, what they're squabbling over there is some of the justices that appears are not convinced that the system as it is setup, was fair enough to Donald Trump, had enough safeguards in place to make sure that prosecutors don't go after his official conduct from when he was president.
So, a mixed bag, Jim, does not look like special counsel Jack Smith is going to get that resounding win that he wanted, especially after getting those big wins at the lower courts.
SCIUTTO: Yes, I mean, especially when the former president claims that his attempts to overturn the election were part of his official duties. A question that really the justices didn't seem all that interested in as we heard those arguments today. Marshall Cohen, thanks so much.
So, let's dive into some more of these legal questions with former federal prosecutor Michael Zeldin. So, first, I want to talk about the legal issues and then I want to get to the practical implications of what we heard today. But first on the legal issues, I heard Trump's attorneys when pressed, say that, well, yes, taking out a political opponent with SEAL team six might fall within the realm of official duties.
Selling nuclear secrets to an adversary might fall within that realm. Staging a coup -- I mean, are the justices, as you heard in these arguments here, even if they don't grant the broadest claim of immunity, are they about to grant a fairly wide range to include things we might never thought imaginable?
OK, we can't hear Michael Zeldin there. We'll fix his microphone. And sometimes, you have to do. We'll take a short break and we'll be right back.
[14:15:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
SCIUTTO: All right. We are back with our continuing coverage of the Supreme Court arguments today. We have Michael Zeldin; former federal prosecutor with us now. Michael, your microphone now fixed. On the first question here. Were you surprised by how broadly, particularly, the conservative justices on the court seemed willing to go in, allowing presidential immunity going forward?
MICHAEL ZELDIN, FORMER FEDERAL PROSECUTOR: Not really, because it seemed to me that if you look at the last name(ph) game case, this was an earlier case where the January 6 people sued president. He said, I am immune, and the court said, well, you know what? We have to hear specifically what the scope of that immunity is.
And we heard a lot about that last name(ph) case in this case today. And so, the justices seemed to be following that thread, saying, you're not absolutely immune, you do have discretion to exercise your powers, and we'll do what they called an objective case specific determination about whether this fits in --
SCIUTTO: OK --
ZELDIN: Or doesn't fit in immunity.
SCIUTTO: Well, they have a case before them, though now, because that's the case of the special --
ZELDIN: Yes --
SCIUTTO: Counsel prosecuting the former president for attempting to overturn the election. Within just the bounds of that case there, do you have a sense of which parts of his alleged attempts to overturn the election they consider OK for a president to do and which they don't?
ZELDIN: No. And we didn't get that. And remember, we had argument where Dreeben was saying counsel for -- special counsel -- let's talk about the facts of this case and Gorsuch and Alito said, all right, we don't want to talk about the facts of this case. We want to talk about the broad parameters of the rules.
So, you can't tell whether the Supreme Court is going to say, look, here's the rule. If it's this, it's official, if it's that, it's --
SCIUTTO: Right --
ZELDIN: Unofficial, or they're going to send this back to the district court to say to Judge Chutkan, you figure that out. And then there'll be some sort of fact-based hearing on it.
SCIUTTO: Those are the two options right there. They could remand to the district court to draw that dividing line as it were.
[14:20:00]
If they were to take the alternate option as you lay out there in which Justice Jackson was speaking to, it seemed towards the end of the oral arguments, how would that work? Would they come back with a piece of paper that would say, OK, from the special counsel's case, these are private duties for which he could be prosecuted, and these are official duties for which he cannot. Is it as simple as that?
ZELDIN: It can be. This is what Justice Jackson was saying, listen, why do we have to, you know, sort of boil the ocean here? We have very specific facts before us. Did what the president -- now -- then president, now, former president do, fall within the ambit of official behavior, which would be protected or was it outside of behavior? And what we say here, looking at the facts of this case is, this was
not official, Judge Chutkan, feel free to start this trial so that they can do that, and they could do that quickly. But they also could say, well, you know, we want to make a rule because who knows when this type of case will come before us again.
And we're going to take it until the end of June to reach that decision and then we're going to tell the judge down below to have a hearing on the matter. And the question is, also Jim, who does it go back to? Does it go to the court of appeals? Does it go to the trial judge, and then backup to the court of appeals? All that stuff was unknowable from this argument.
SCIUTTO: I mean, that's the practical implication here. What is the most likely outcome? Is it that the court takes some time deciding it, then at some point down the road, perhaps days or weeks right up to the possibility of July when they go home, then sends it down which I imagine -- well, at a minimum, it delays his case.
Is there any likelihood that they move with enough speed and don't set up too many additional steps that a trial happens before the election or did that just disappear with what we heard today?
ZELDIN: I think a trial is doable. If the Supreme Court decides this matter quickly, remember in Nixon cases, there were very quick decisions and the Gore versus Bush constitutional challenge to the Florida counting, that was very quick. They can move quickly.
And the way the process works is the oral arguments, and they go back after the argument ends and have a conversation and decide how the vote looks. They take a preliminary vote and then the case is assigned to a majority writer and a minority writer if there are dissents, they could do that stuff quickly. But if they don't --
SCIUTTO: Yes --
ZELDIN: Then this case could go on until the end of June. And then if there's a hearing, it has to be held and appeal from it, then there's no trial.
SCIUTTO: Yes, and listen, on this hearing, they could have moved more quickly. They didn't have to wait weeks to hear these arguments. They did. We'll see if that's an indicator for how quickly they moved on this next step. Michael Zeldin, thanks so much.
In New York, an appeals court has overturned a conviction against the former Hollywood producer Harvey Weinstein, and in a vote of 4-3, the court has now ordered a new trial. The court's ruling states the trial court erroneously admitted testimony of uncharged alleged prior sexual acts against persons other than the complainants of the underlying crimes.
The Manhattan District Attorney's office says it does plan to retry the case. And another story we're following closely from coast-to- coast protests spreading on college campuses across the U.S. as students demand an end to the war in Gaza and freedom for the Palestinian people.
It's happening so fast, it's almost hard to keep track of just how many schools are seeing protests and encampments like this one pop up on campus. The protests that began at Columbia University in New York have now spread to Harvard, Princeton, Georgetown, Northwestern, and many other campuses, including on the west coast.
Authorities have arrested hundreds of people as some schools are calling out police to clear those demonstrators. This chaotic scene happened at Emory University in Atlanta. Law enforcement wrangling protesters to ground, put them in zip-tie handcuffs, they also used pepper spray.
Emory says the protesters were not affiliated with the school and were trespassing. At least two, though, are professors. We want to go live now to CNN's Polo Sandoval. He's on Columbia campus in New York, Ed Lavandera, he's at the University of Texas where riot police broke up peaceful protests, made dozens of arrests. We saw them knocking a lot of people to the ground.
Polo, first, if I could begin with you, tell us what the latest is on the Columbia campus. Has any agreement been reached between the protesters, we should note include both pro-Palestinians, but also many Jewish students who have joined them. Any agreement between them and authorities at the school?
POLO SANDOVAL, CNN CORRESPONDENT: And Jim, that list of demands that you just laid out, it remains unchanged. And I have to tell you, my colleagues and I had enough to actually visit this campus already for the last several days.
[14:25:00]
There's a difference today. There is perhaps a little bit more uncertainty in the air because the big question here on the ground is what will become of the encampment that still remains here on the Columbia campus. Remember, it was a little over a week ago that there was a similar encampment that was set up here that university officials then turned to the NYPD for assistance in clearing that, that encampment out.
So, as these negotiations continue between leader -- group leaders of this encampment here that again, have laid out those demands that you just laid out. And the university, the big question is, what -- will there be some sort of decision that's reached here, because there certainly is at least a higher prospect for this possibility that we could potentially see a situation similar to what played out on Wednesday happen again.
In terms of the general feeling among the -- you know, many of these students here, I even had an opportunity to speak to one student that's not actively participating in any demonstrations, just been as he put it objectively, seeing everything happened. He is expected to graduate next month.
And he said something interesting, Jim, to me, which is, this is a graduating class that started in 2020, right? This is a -- this is the height of the pandemic. So, it is a graduating class. It started with disruption and it will likely end with a very different level of disruption here. But the disruption nonetheless, he told me that he certainly appreciates what's happening here.
However, for him and potentially thousands of other graduating students like himself, he wants his commencement ceremony. So, that's a big question right now. What will the university potentially do in the coming days. Tonight, perhaps, when the deadline looms and gets closer to see if these folks here will have to move out. Jim?
SCIUTTO: It's a big question for them, you can understand their experience. Now to Ed Lavandera in Austin, Texas. And Ed, I have to see when I saw the images of police moving in there and throwing people to the ground, including not just protesters, but also journalists covering those events. What was the thinking behind that response? And have you seen that continue?
ED LAVANDERA, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Well, today is a much different atmosphere to what we saw yesterday when that -- the protests started here on the campus of the University of Texas. This is a large group that has gathered here on the south mall in the heart of the campus just underneath the UT Tower.
I mean, there's a small group of Jewish protesters as well, they've been kind of chanting back-and-forth, but nothing has escalated to anything of significance. And if you look back on this side, the police presence kind of staying back just along the walls over there, allowing the protesters here in the space.
They have been -- university officials passing out flyers on how this protests can be conducted, but very different from what we saw yesterday. And university president has come under great fire for as long -- as well with the governor of Texas calling out state troopers to be here.
And they feel -- and the protesters felt like it was the officers that escalated the situation yesterday. But the university president, unapologetic about that, saying that this campus will not be occupied in any way, and saying that the protesters yesterday had broken the institutional rules as to how the protest could be carried out.
But a much different scene here today where the protesters are gathered here on the South Mall, Jim, chanting, and they have been doing that for more than an hour now. And the police presence definitely been held back. We haven't seen any state troopers or any National Guard or anything like that here on campus today. It really has just been campus and local police that we've seen on campus today. Jim.
SCIUTTO: Yes, it's a big difference from what we saw yesterday. Ed Lavandera, Polo Sandoval, thanks so much to both of you. And still to come tonight, much more of our special coverage of Donald Trump's hush money trial. One of two when we return.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK) [14:30:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
JIMENEZ: All right. Everyone, welcome back.
The jury is back in the courtroom. Questioning has resumed. Court is back in session in Former President Donald Trump's hush money trial. Now, David Pecker has been testifying for a third day and for hours today. He's been laying out for the jury, really in detail, catch and kill deals.
Basically, plots to bury damaging stories about Trump. Now, the deal he helped broker with adult film star Stormy Daniels is at the center of the case. And we're still waiting for the judge to rule on whether or not Trump violated his gag order. The prosecution has added more violations to the record.
So, a lot to talk about here. I'm now joined by CNN's Kristen Holmes, who's been covering this for us. You also cover the former president, as well, out on the campaign trail. And this is, sort of, the mixing of the two, I think, is fair to say.
Now, part of what Pecker has been testifying goes back to a lot of a personal relationship that they have had --
KRISTEN HOLMES, CNN U.S. NATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Decades.
JIMENEZ: -- over the course of this. For decades. What is their personal relationship and how do you think what's being testified is impacting Donald Trump?
HOLMES: Well, it's been really interesting to watch Donald Trump, and keep in mind that when they were friends for decades, he -- I actually asked him this morning at a campaign stop when the last time they spoke was, he ignored the question.
All he would say about David Pecker was that he was a really nice guy. He had been nice to him. He clearly is holding back any kind of vehement rhetoric, which is something we see often when he is up against somebody who is testifying against him. In this case, Pecker has really stuck to the facts.
Again, they've known each other for a very long time. Pecker's talking a lot about various stories, particularly with some salacious details that he helped bury ahead of the election for Donald Trump. One thing that was interesting to me that stood out was the way that he said that Trump's demeanor kind of shifted when he began running for president, that in their previous relationship, he used to kill stories for him. And because Trump would say it would be embarrassing or hurtful to Melania and Ivanka, that shifted to it being hurtful to his presidential campaign.
So, clearly kind of a shift in priorities there. But when we talk about like the actual salacious details that they are getting into right now. Donald Trump is not really reacting. He's sitting there. He's looking around. He's looking at Pecker.
At one time -- at one point, Pecker was telling a story about how he went up to Trump Tower after Donald Trump had been elected, but he was still president-elect. He walked into a room with Mike Pompeo and James Comey. All of them there briefing him on a Florida shooting, and Donald Trump looked at Pecker and looked at the people in the room and said, oh, this is David Pecker. He knows more than any of you. And people in the courtroom laughed. Donald Trump even smirked at that.
He's trying not to have an actual engagement here. No faces are being made. Not really any frowns or staring at Pecker. It's kind of an interesting dynamic.
[14:35:00]
JIMENEZ: ?Yes, and look, you're in an interesting point reporter- wise, because again, I had mentioned you've been out on the campaign trail as well. This trial is not happening in a vacuum. We are in an election year. He often has gone back and forth from campaign stops to legal stops here. And I'm curious, for you, how much do you get the sense that the campaign realizes that this trial is not happening in a vacuum?
HOLMES: Well, I think that the campaign really realized in the last two weeks what this is going to look like.
JIMENEZ: Yes.
HOLMES: They had the schedule. They knew he was going to have off Wednesdays and the weekend. They said they were going to build a whole campaign schedule around it. But I don't think that the reality had really lined up for what this was going to look like.
This is long hours for Donald Trump. And he is sitting there in that courtroom. He's not used to having to sit there with everybody watching him. I mean, with court reporters in there who are describing his every move. You know, that is exhausting for someone.
So, now they're trying to plan these kind of campaign events that are local. Bringing the campaign trail to them. That's what we saw this morning, 6:00 a.m. He comes down to a construction site. He meets with construction workers, as well as union members. That's a group that he's really trying to court that generally vote Democratic.
And that is where I asked him the question about David Pecker. Now, what's interesting, we talked about these two things, kind of, coming together is that as soon as we got here this morning, the prosecution used that answer to the question that I asked against Donald Trump. Saying that he had violated the gag order once more.
So, overall, it's really interesting to see these two worlds intersect in a way that they had thought it was happening before when he chose to come to court appearances --
JIMENEZ: For sure.
HOLMES: -- but now being forced to do this, it looks a little different.
JIMENEZ: And, as you mentioned, to have words that he said literally minutes ago come up in court --
HOLMES: Exactly.
JIMENEZ: -- in a legal proceeding. So interesting. Kristen, really appreciate you being here.
I also want to bring in Attorney and Legal Affairs Commentator Areva Martin into this conversation. And Areva, I'm curious from how you've been following what we have seen so far in the testimony from David Pecker. Obviously, the prosecution is trying to build a case that these payments were illegal in the sense that they were trying to influence folks before the election. Do you think Pecker's testimony has been effective for the prosecution so far?
AREVA MARTIN, ATTORNEY AND LEGAL AFFAIRS COMMENTATOR: Yes, Omar. I think Pecker has been an outstanding witness for the prosecution from all reports. He's very calm. He's very composed. He's answering very straight -- in a very straightforward manner. And some reports are that he's built a significant rapport with the prosecution on that always bodes well for the prosecution if the questioning is fluid if the person appears credible.
Now, of course, we've not seen him cross examined yet by Trump's team, and we expect that to be a pretty, very -- you know, vigorous cross examination. We know Trump's team is going to go after him on his credibility on the, you know, immunity deal he has with the government. But so far, he has been describing very, very salacious details of stories about catching and killing stories to support Donald Trump in his effort to become president of the United States.
JIMENEZ: And this is now the third day Pecker has been testifying and has done so for hours today. And I'm curious just from your perspective, you know, he is the first witness to be called here by the prosecution.
And clearly, legal teams, they have a strategy overall in trying to bring witnesses on the stand. From where you sit, what do you believe the strategy is for putting someone like Pecker on the stand first as far as a prosecutorial witness?
MARTIN: Well, one of the things you always do in a trial is you try to start with one of your best witnesses and you want to end with a very strong witness. And by far, David Pecker has been a strong witness for the prosecution.
I think what makes him so strong is that personal relationship you just talked about. He was a friend of Donald Trump, so this is not a foe. This is not someone who Republicans can point the finger at and say he's, you know, had it in for Donald Trump. That he's been an adversary for years. This is someone that he has worked with for a very long time. They've worked on lots of projects together. He was killing stories for Donald Trump even before he decided to run for president. So, to hear someone's friend come out and testify in the way that he -- David Pecker has can be very, very persuasive testimony for a jury. So, I think the prosecution has done what most good prosecutorial teams do, which is to start their case with a very strong witness, a witness in some ways that cannot be impeached.
And that we're going to hear, not only from Pecker, on these stories of catch and kill, but then you're going to hear from Michael Cohen, who's going to come in and, in many ways, you know, support what has been said by Pecker. Then we're going to hear from Stormy Daniels. So, you're going to hear this cascading of testimony all supporting each other. That's going to be very, very powerful for the prosecution.
JIMENEZ: And before we go, you know, just to remind our viewers this is direct examination right now on David Pecker. The defense will have a chance to cross examine this witness.
[14:40:00]
When you're sitting there as a prosecutor and you have done what you can do on the direct examination portion of it, how different can a picture be painted by a defense attorney for a jury in that cross examination point? And what are you looking for to try to almost correct and push back on as a prosecutor once you've had your first chance?
MARTIN: With great question, Omar. Typically, what a prosecutor will do is ask those questions where there may be vulnerabilities. So, if they know a particular witness has some vulnerabilities with regards to his testimony, they want to bring those out first.
They don't want the jury to first learn about any of those vulnerabilities from the cross examination. So, it's likely that any area where this prosecution team believes that David Pecker is weak, they are going to get that testimony out first. They are going to give him an opportunity to talk about those weak -- weaknesses.
Because on cross -- on direct examination, you have more leeway. You get to tell a story. You get to answer the questions, open-ended questions and give more narrative. A really strong cross examination is going to hold you to very short, very concise answers, sometimes just yes or no.
So, I would expect that the prosecution before they rest with this witness, any issues that they think could be a problem, we are going to hear about them first from this prosecutorial team before the cross examination from Donald Trump's team. What we're going to be looking for there is they are going to go after him pretty hard on the issue of was this done to influence the election or just to avoid embarrassment to his family.
JIMENEZ: Yes. Areva Martin, really appreciate the time and perspective as always.
As we've been talking about, David Pecker is resuming his testimony on this third day of testimony. He's been testifying for hours just today alone on the direct examination portion of him being on the witness stand.
Donald Trump's historic cases are historic for a former U.S. president, but then a presidential historian will join us to explain the long-term implications. Stay with us.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
JIM SCIUTTO, CNN ANCHOR AND CHIEF NATIONAL SECURITY CORRESPONDENT: Of course, it's a big day for Donald Trump on the legal front. The U.S. Supreme Court has finished hearing oral arguments over whether the former president can claim broad immunity from prosecution in Special Counsel Jack Smith's federal election subversion case against him.
[14:45:00]
Smith's attorney suggested that if the court rules Trump's immunity were implicit, it could protect him from state prosecution, such as in the state of Georgia. What are the many potential implications in this case?
Joining us now, Presidential Historian Tim Naftali. And Tim, of course, you know the history of the Nixon presidency and what followed very well. And you had quick decisions at the time by the legal system. For instance, in the tapes, the Nixon tapes, but also a recognition, it seemed, of presidential vulnerability to prosecution, and that the president that followed Nixon pardoned him, presuming that there was some chance of prosecution.
What changed, I suppose, is the question? Because as I and smarter people other than myself listen to this court here, they seemed to be open to immunity for things that you or I yesterday might have said no way, they would consider that potentially falling under presidential immunity.
TIM NAFTALI, CNN PRESIDENTIAL HISTORIAN: Well, In the Nixon cases, and they have been referred to a lot.
SCIUTTO: Yes.
NAFTALI: Particularly one, the Fitzgerald case, it's been referred to a lot. And I think it's important to know what was said and what wasn't decided at the time.
The Fitzgerald case had nothing to do with Watergate. It had to do with an accountant who worked for the U.S. Air Force who felt he was unfairly fired. And the court ruled in 1982 that presidents -- the presidents were immune from civil liability cases.
It did not discuss, mention --
SCIUTTO: Right.
NAFTALI: -- or attempt to regulate criminal cases. And in fact, the Chief Justice at the time, Warren Burger, in his decision with the majority, he didn't write the main decision, but he wrote a side decision said, by the way, this doesn't touch criminal issues. SCIUTTO: Right.
NAFTALI: So, the court has --
SCIUTTO: I was referring back to the tapes case, though. Like in the midst of Watergate, which of --
NAFTALI: Right.
SCIUTTO: -- the court seemed to move very quickly on it and seemed to set limits on presidential protections.
NAFTALI: Well, the court moved very fast and it moved very fast in 1974 because there was a criminal trial pending. And the issue was the -- and the criminal trial was not of Nixon, the issue was whether those under indictment had a right to information that the president was attempting to prevent the prosecutors from having that might help their defense.
And so, the court moved fast in order to ensure equal justice under law. And that -- and they limited presidential executive privilege by saying, it does not extend to materials required in a criminal process.
Today, what we heard was a majority, it seems, that does not like the breadth of the lower court decision regarding immunity. The fact that the lower court did not discuss the difference between immunity for official acts, however you describe them, and private acts disturbed the chief justice. And I think it's important to look at the chief justice because in a case like this, the chief justice is going to try to have as much consensus as possible and will likely want to write the opinion.
So, the Chief Justice, Roberts, seemed very -- it would seem very concerned with the broad rejection of the Trump lawyers' arguments by the lower courts. That's not to say that this court can't come up with some kind of test as the lower court did in 1974 that would allow the trial to go forward.
Clearly, the president, president -- Former President Trump's lawyer was seeking to delay everything because even he admitted that there are private acts that are alleged in the indictment, which would never be covered by immunity. So, he knows a trial was going to happen. Clearly, he and President -- Former President Trump want to delay the trial until after the election.
SCIUTTO: I guess it just, it gets to what precedent you're setting here, right? Because the justices seem -- the conservative justices seemed concerned about setting too broad a standard here and then opening future presidents to a whole host of potentially frivolous prosecutions.
The trouble is they have before them a very real case that happened, at least allegedly happened. A president attempting to overturn election and prevent the peaceful transfer of power which the special counsel is trying to prosecute him for it. It did not seem there was any urgency to get that question decided, whether the former president, now candidate for president, is potentially criminally liable.
[14:50:00]
NAFTALI: Well, that's the big difference, Jim. It's the lack of sense of urgency. In 1974, with the trial of Haldeman, who was the White House Chief of Staff and others pending, and the impeachment issue, ongoing, the court felt it had to move fast.
This court doesn't seem to have the same -- and at the moment, because remember, we're basing this all on oral arguments.
SCIUTTO: Right.
NAFTALI: We don't know what their decision is going to be. But based on the oral arguments, one got the sense that they were taking a more leisurely attitude to adjudicating this issue.
SCIUTTO: Yes. Well, and they also could have heard those oral arguments days or weeks ago. There was some criticism they took a leisurely attitude towards hearing the arguments in the first place, although I know it's faster than they typically do cases. Tim Naftali, good to have your historical perspective.
NAFTALI: Thank you, Jim. Pleasure.
SCIUTTO: And we'll be right back after a short break.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
SCIUTTO: Turning now to Russia's ongoing invasion of Ukraine. A senior defense official says the Pentagon is now moving, "Significant stocks of ammunition" at a, "Very rapid rate to Ukraine". And much of the ammunition is already prepositioned in stockpiles in Europe. This comes after Wednesday's announcement that the U.S. secretly sent long- range missiles to Ukraine before this latest aid package was approved and after months of resistance.
Now, the story we're following just heart-wrenching scenes in Australia where a dramatic rescue saved the lives of dozens of pilot whales who beached themselves on Australia's western coast. Isa Soares has the details.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
ISA SOARES, CNN INTERNATIONAL CORRESPONDENT AND ANCHOR (voice-over): With a big heave ho, a stranded whale is pulled to shore. Rescue teams rushed to Western Australia's coast on Thursday to undertake a dramatic operation rescuing around 130 pilot whales after at least 160 were beached. Although volunteers and wildlife officials managed to rescue some to sea, the exercise was only partially successful after at least 28 died.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: That was maybe a wake up to humanity, to see how we're treating the water, how we're treating the planet. [14:55:00]
SOARES (voice-over): Animal behaviorists and marine scientists have previously said survival rates for beached whales is low, surviving for only six hours on land before they start to deteriorate. But with this mass stranding, it was the community spirit that shone through as locals and officials worked side by side to keep the whales upright and their blowholes clear.
Whilst the reason for whales strandings continue to puzzle experts, some theorize there may be a noise disturbance or an illness within the whales' pod that caused the mass stranding. But ultimately, they just don't know.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: The young one, but yes, no initial ideas as to what's caused the stranding.
SOARES (voice-over): And it's not only Australia where this mystery takes place. Last year, more than 50 whales died in a mass stranding event in Scotland. After frantic efforts to revive the few were found alive, yielded no results, officials had to make the heartbreaking decision to euthanize them.
As for some of the lucky whales who survived this incident. Rescue team said it was good news.
Isa Soares, CNN, London.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
SCIUTTO: Great work by all of them. Please do stay with us. I'm back with NEWSROOM in just a moment.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[15:00:00]
