Return to Transcripts main page
CNN Newsroom
CNN INTERNATIONAL: Ex-Tabloid Publisher David Pecker Back On Stand In Hush Money Case; Justices Seem Skeptical of Trump's Sweeping View Of Immunity; Protests Spreading Across University Campuses In U.S. Aired 3-4p ET
Aired April 25, 2024 - 15:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
[15:00:40]
JIM SCIUTTO, CNN HOST: It is 8:00 p.m. in London, 10:00 p.m. in Kyiv, 12:00 noon in Los Angeles, 3:00 p.m. here in Washington.
I'm Jim Sciutto. Thanks so much for joining me.
And let's get right to the news.
We are following two major legal stories involving the former President Donald Trump.
Today, the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments in the case over whether the former president may claim immunity from prosecution in his federal election subversion case. Trump has been charged with attempting to subvert the results of the 2020 presidential election. The decision by the nation's highest court could help determine whether he will face trial in the case before November's presidential election. We're going to walk you through the legal and political implications of this case in a moment.
We do begin though in New York where Donald Trump is once again in a Manhattan courtroom for day three of testimony in his criminal hush money trial. At this hour, former tabloid publisher David Pecker is back on the stand. Trump, you may remember, is facing 34 felony counts of falsifying business records in what prosecutors say was an attempt to influence the 2016 presidential election by covering up a looming sex scandal involving the president.
CNN's Jessica Schneider is following the Manhattan trial. She joins me now.
Jessica, David Pecker on the stand now, notably saying that he was discussing the Karen McDougal case, of course, another alleged affair with the former president, with White House staff at the time. Tell us the significance of that.
JESSICA SCHNEIDER, CNN JUSTICE CORRESPONDENT: Yeah. And at one point, he was even invited to the White House summer of 2017, just a few months after Donald Trump took office, he went to the White House, brought some staffers with him and enjoyed, you know, being at the president's -- in the president's company. So, I mean, this just goes to the very close relationship that they had and the fact that David Pecker really seemed to want to do anything he could to help Donald Trump out.
Now, David Pecker, you know, this is third day of testimony. He's testified already total for more than five hours. What's been crucial about this afternoon's testimony is he has finally launched into the Stormy Daniels saga, that is at the heart of this case. We've already heard from him on those payouts to Karen McDougal and the Trump Tower doorman. Those, however, are not part of this case, but they just went to the pattern of the payoffs.
But Pecker did testify that when word got to him that Stormy Daniels wanted to go public with her story, David Pecker saying, you know, he drew the line. He said, I am not a bank and he refused to be the one to pay her off after making those two previous payoffs.
So what he did in the Stormy Daniels case is he said he told us editor in chief Dylan Howard to get in touch with Michael Cohen, alert them about this possible story, and Pecker really stressed, he did not want AMI involved in this story in particularly because it involved a porn star.
So that's the testimony we're hearing right now from David Pecker. He's also given some crucial testimony about Trump's concerns related to these payoffs, Pecker did say that Trump really was primarily concerned about how all of these allegations could affect his campaign if they were made public as a opposed to, you know, in 2016, 2017, worrying about shielding his family and that could be crucial playing into the prosecutions case that Trump, in fact, was violating campaign finance roles by paying off people by proxy to protect his election chances.
So, Jim, there's all this testimony is still happening and, of course, still waiting lets see what happens with that gag order ruling. Judge Merchan, this afternoon said he'll now consider for more instances that prosecutors say Trump violated the gag order with. So now were up to about 14 instances. We've been waiting on this gag order ruling for a few days, so it's possible. Judge Merchan could maybe issue something today when core concludes around 4:30.
SCIUTTO: Interesting. Okay, that'll be a development to watch for.
SCHNEIDER: Yeah.
SCIUTTO: Jessica Schneider, thanks so much.
Joining me now is Jeff Swartz, former Florida judge, professor of law at Cooley Law School, to discuss -- well, I've got a few legal questions for you today, Jeff Swartz.
Let's begin in the Supreme Court because let's be frank. This deals with the prosecution of a former president and current candidate for president, also broad questions about immunity for all presidents going forward. I want to play an exchange here between justice, Amy Coney Barrett and lawyer for the president and the court about what is a crucial question now it seems.
[15:05:07] What are a president's official acts? What are his or her private acts? And how that relates to this case and cases going forward?
Have a listen to the exchange and I want to get your thoughts on the other side.
(BEGIN AUDIO CLIP)
JUSTICE AMY CONEY BARRETT, U.S. SUPREME COURT: You concede that private acts don't get immunity.
D. JOHN SAUER, TRUMP'S ATTORNEY: We do.
BARRETT: Okay. And I want to know if you agree or disagree about the characterization of these acts as private. Petitioner turned to a private attorney, was willing to spread knowingly false claims of election fraud to spearhead his challenges to the election results. Private?
SAUER: We dispute the allegation, but it sounds private to me.
BARRETT: It sounds private.
Petitioner conspired with another private attorney who caused the filing in court of a verifications signed by petitioner that contain false allegations to support a challenge. Private?
SAUER: Sounds private.
BARRETT: Three private actors to attorneys, including those mentioned above, and a political consultant helped implement a plan to submit fraudulent slates of presidential electors to obstruct the certification proceeding and petitioner and a coconspirator attorney directed that effort?
SAUER: You read it quickly. I believe that's private.
(END AUDIO CLIP)
SCIUTTO: That's very key because Amy Coney Barrett was going through elements of the special counsel's case that involve what even Trump's lawyer was conceding there were private acts, which seems to say that some of that case is going to survive here, right? I guess the question is, how does it survive?
So what are the most likely next steps?
JEFF SWARTZ, PROFESSOR, COOLEY LAW SCHOOL: Well, the next step is, I don't know exactly what the courts going to do, but it sounds like that what they're going to say is there's no such thing as absolute immunity, but you have to divide between what is a private act and what is a an act in furtherance of his duties as president.
And then in fact, he may have some form of immunity from those acts that he does as a president. The problem is that most of the things that he did as a president really aren't the substance of any of the charges. They are evidenced showing motive, intent, and knowledge, what we call for 404B evidence to establish that he wasn't making a mistake. He knew exactly what he was doing. And these things were supposed to aid his private actions.
So he hasn't been charged with doing anything as a public official. All of the accident they're talking about in the indictment deal with something in his private matters relating to him being elected or not elected during the 2020 election. So I'm not sure exactly what they're going to do.
My concern is that they send it back down to Judge Chutkan who is the trial lawyer and says you have to hold a hearing and make a determination on all of this. And if she makes a determination, that becomes appealable, and now, all of a sudden, we're two years down the pike and we still haven't brought this case to trial.
SCIUTTO: Yeah.
SWARTZ: My hope is, is that is not what they do.
SCIUTTO: We'll see.
SWARTZ: Yeah.
(CROSSTALK)
SCIUTTO: They certainly had -- they certainly already had the opportunity to learn more quickly than they have. So well see where they go from here.
Let's set aside the Supreme Court case. We're going to dive into that even more deeply in our next block. But before we get there, just the events of what's happening today in New York. David Pecker is again for the third day now describing a pattern here of Trump and his friends killing stories that they thought would be inconvenient to him. And what was notable about his most recent testimony is that that effort seems to continue -- seem to continue after he was president and you have a Pecker describing a conversation that included White House staff, Sarah Huckabee Sanders.
What's the significance to the case of that, if any?
SWARTZ: Well, the fact that it continued after he became president means that it was in furtherance of him remaining president, even if you want to relate it all the way over to a reelection bid. But to the bottom line is that he is basically showing his knowledge of everything that occurred, and that he is involved in whatever the payoffs were at a later time, which means he's aware that in fact there were payments made to Michael Cohen that were meant to go to either Ms. McDougal or to Stormy Daniels.
So I find that Mr. Pecker's testimony is probably more damaging than Michael Cohen's testimony will ultimately be. Michael Cohen becomes the conduit but what's really happening is it's Pecker and it's the former president who are conspiring to take care of all of this and keep it out of Mr. Trump's way. SCIUTTO: Yeah, it's notable because, of course, been a lot of talk
about how the defense would intend to impugn Cohen's credibility because he had lied before, but they seem to be building the case around Pecker there.
I wonder how it relates to another piece of the defense argument which was as relate to the financial records here, I believe I heard the defense attorney say, listen, he was president and he was doing other stuff. Basically, you'd have time to keep track of this.
[15:10:02]
But if there are conversations while he's in the White House and you also have Pecker there, even asking about the status of some of these cases while he was in the White House, that would seem to help establish he was aware of what was going on.
SWARTZ: Well, that kind of helps establish it. It's unfortunate no testimony will come in as to the reputation that the former president have, and not really spending all lot of time on government business.
SCIUTTO: Yeah.
SWARTZ: I mean, he didn't come down until noon and any went to dinner at five, so he wasn't one of those people that was really working all that hard at the job.
But the fact of the matter is that if he's spending time entertaining Mr. Pecker and having private meetings with him and having private dinners with him, then clearly he is deeply involved in what Mr. Pecker is doing on his behalf and he is following up to make sure that this doesn't come back to bite him later on. And that he was obviously very deeply involved in all this.
SCIUTTO: Okay. On the question of the gag order before we go. You heard our reporter there say that they've added four more, I believe instances to the list of potential violations that gag order and some speculation that the judge might decide on this as soon as today. If we do get a decision on that, where do you think the judge goes?
SWARTZ: Well, I think obviously he I think he's going to hold them in contempt. He's going to find him probably the maximum you can find him. He's going to warn him again that if he keeps doing it, things are going to get worse.
My feeling is that if he really wants to have an impact, he will deliver that decision in open court with Mr. Trump there, with a copy of the order, and then look down at him and say, do you understand everything I've said in here, Mr. Trump? Do you understand that the penalties could get worse and there are other alternatives I have available to them, and make Trump answer. That lets Mr. Trump know that in fact, he is not in control and he can't continue to defy the court.
This is an issue of the dignity of the court and defying the court. And if I were the judge, that's exactly what I would do. I would make him acknowledge it in open court, in front of everyone.
SCIUTTO: Jeff Swartz, thanks so much.
When we come back, we're going to take a closer look at what we heard from the Supreme Court today, and what that means for this case going forward and for presidents going forward as well.
Please do stay with us.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[15:15:34]
SCIUTTO: Welcome back.
We are writing a rule for the ages. That is how Justice Neil Gorsuch described today's monumental oral arguments regarding the question, not just of the special counsel's case against Donald Trump alleging that he attempted to overturn the 2020 election, but also setting a precedent for future presidents -- what kinds of behavior, what kind of acts, private and prosecuted for criminally.
At the top of the mind of another justice, that one Samuel Alito, seemed to be the fear and not so much of what a president might do in office, but how his post-office life might be. Have a listen.
(BEGIN AUDIO CLIP)
JUSTICE SAMUEL ALITO, U.S. SUPREME COURT: If a an incumbent who loses a very close hotly contested election knows that a real possibility after leaving office is not that the president is going to be able to go off into a peaceful retirement but that the president may be criminally prosecuted by a bitter political opponent. Will that not lead us into a cycle that destabilizes the functioning of our country is a democracy.
MICHAEL DREEBEN, ATTORNEY: I think it's exactly the opposite, Justice Alito.
SONIA SOTOMAYOR, U.S. SUPREME COURT: A stable Democratic society needs the good faith of its public officials, correct?
DREEBEN: Absolutely.
(END AUDIO CLIP)
SCIUTTO: Joining us now is Joan Biskupic covers the Supreme Court for CNN.
And, Joan, that struck me as a pretty remarkable moment because he's talking about a hypothetical here that, oh, are we going to you now have a situation where nice president just wants to go on into the sunset and is prosecuted, whereas before them they have an actual case where a president did not want to go off into the sunset, was trying to overturn the election after he lost at attempted to -- well, do a whole host, a bunch of things to do that. I mean, were you surprised listening to the court where this conversation went during these oral arguments?
JOAN BISKUPIC, CNN SENIOR SUPREME COURT ANALYST: I was, Jim, and it's good to see you. I have to say, yeah, it was just gripping set of hours in the courtroom and part of it was -- first of all, that huge historic nature of this untested question of whether a president would be absolutely immune from criminal prosecution after he left office. But -- but the nature of the questions. And as much as Michael Dreeben who Samuel Alito was addressing, that comment, you just heard from Justice Alito as much as he tried to turn the conversation toward what happened in the immediate days after the November 2020 election, leading up to the attack on the Capitol on January 6, 2021, Justice Alito and some of the other ones just weren't having that. What they -- what they were focused on is sort of retribution by one president to another, potentially overzealous prosecutors who would target a president.
And I would say just bottom-line, Jim, takeaways, they're not going to rule that there is absolute immunity in every, every situation, but that won't matter for Donald Trump. They provided enough suggestions of detours, if not outright, off ramps, to a trial in the near future for Donald Trump.
SCIUTTO: Let me ask you this. You and I have talked about this related to many cases that this conservative led court has handled. They are they say textualists, if it's not in the constitution, not specifically delineated, I'm not interested. But it seems to me that they were creating immunity here that doesn't exist in the Constitution. In other words, creating a kind of barrier around the president that as far as I can tell, and I don't cover it as closely as you, but, but smarter people than myself have noted, the constitution doesn't grant presidents this kind of immunity for these kinds of acts that were discussed today.
BISKUPIC: Right, and this is a point that Michael Dreeben, representing Jack Smith and the United States government hammered away at. The Framers of the Constitution and court precedent since then all supports a frame -- a constitutional framework that would exclude absolute immunity for the president. And that's -- I think that I went into it thinking that they would at least buy that argument.
And in the end, Jim, they'll probably at least give that -- give that some, some weight but the key thing here, as they were looking at the present -- the constitutional framework is they were buying a lot of what John Sauer, the lawyer representing Donald Trump was saying about protecting the precedent.
Now, separation of powers first, the concept in the Constitution can cut both ways. Obviously, as I said, traditionally, it has not precluded one branch holding a former president criminally liable for wrongdoing in office. But -- but they -- the justices, as evidenced by the clip you just ran of Justice Alito, were just really concerned about overreach and about presidents been subjected to just real unfairness after leaving office, and then it kind of back-and-forth going forward, one president then attacking another president. SCIUTTO: Yeah, worried about overreach of prosecutors, but not
overreach of presidents, which is the issue at hand here -- a president trying to overturn an election.
BISKUPIC: And you know what? Justices Gorsuch and Alito said when those, when the lawyer at the lectern brought up those events was oh, well, I'm not -- I don't want to talk about the facts here. I want to talk about the fact here. I want to think about future cases, want to talk about future cases
SCIUTTO: Right.
BISKUPIC: Really, to a person -- and they rightly have to come up with a rule that will affect future presidents, but it was amazing that the presence of Donald Trump in that room today, and he wasn't obviously physically present, but the president of presence of Donald Trump in that room was not Donald Trump as someone who might have done something wrong except for in the eyes of a couple of the liberals there.
SCIUTTO: It's remarkable. Well, we'll see where they go with this and how quickly.
BISKUPIC: Yeah.
SCIUTTO: Joan Biskupic, thanks so much.
BISKUPIC: Thanks, Jim.
SCIUTTO: Let's dive a little bit more to those legal questions. Leah Litman, she's a law professor at the University of Michigan, co-host of the podcast, "Strict Scrutiny". And Jonathan Adler, law professor at Case Western Reserve University.
It's good to have you both here.
Jonathan, did I hear correctly when the president's lawyer was pushed by particularly the liberal justices on the extent of immunity. And they brought up cases like a president taking out a political opponent with SEAL Team Six, a president selling nuclear secrets to an adversary, a president attempting a coup, where I would have thought the answer is pretty clearly, no, a president cannot do that and its could certainly be criminally prosecuted for it, maybe found not guilty, but still prosecuted.
That's not the answer that lawyer gave. Jonathan, were you surprised by that?
JONATHAN ADLER, LAW PROFESSOR, CASE WESTERN RESERVE UNIVERSITY: Well, that -- when the case was heard below, we had a very similar exchange and it certainly Trump is taking a very broad position and a very broad position about the scope of official immunity. And I think taking a position that few of the justices will ultimately embrace.
There was wide agreement today that there are some powers of the president that are exclusive, that can't be criminalized, even acknowledge that. But that's a relatively limited set and I don't think that a situation where the president could order the assassination of arrivals are like is something that any of the justices are going to endorse.
SCIUTTO: Understood. Okay.
So, and, Leah Litman, I imagine you agree that the court, even with these questions, is not going to say president cant do anything can do anything he or she wants at any time but they're going to -- they're pushing for some distinction between official acts and private acts here. I suppose the question is, that's still gives a president of a fair amount of power, does it not? I mean, for instance, in this case because I remember it, Trump is claiming that it was part of his official acts to attempt to challenge this election here.
What -- do you have a sense of where they intend to draw that line?
LEAH LITMAN, ASSISTANT PROFESSOR OF LAW, UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN: No, and I think that's part of the problem. I think it's clear that there's probably a majority of justices on the court who want to say there's some set of official acts of the president that are entitled to immunity. But there wasn't a consensus on how to distinguish official acts that are entitled to immunity from private acts that are not. You had justices Alito and Sotomayor say, well, maybe the standard is something like is something reasonably within the presidents official duties are plausibly within the presidents official duties and even though the justices really want to establish some legal tests that could guide future cases down the road.
The reality is, as you're suggesting, this case isn't hard under any legal standard a president attempting to put together a fake slate of electors and contest the results of a validly conducted election and stay in power through unlawful means is not plausibly, reasonably or remotely within the scope of the president's official duties.
[15:25:05]
And so, there's just not much the court needs to say or do there.
SCIUTTO: But they say lot, right? I mean, and they've certainly dragged out the process and while the court of appeals prior, which by the way, with both conservative and well, Democrat and Republican appointed judges, they were quite clear and quite quick. The Supreme Court will not be.
So, Jonathan Adler, what happens now? I mean, they do -- are they more likely to remand and go back to the lower court, the district court and say, you guys got to sort out where the line is between official and private, or might they as Judge Jackson seem to be suggesting toward the ends of oral arguments, come up with their own delineation as to what falls on either side of that line?
ADLER: Well, from what I heard, I think the courts going to try and give at least some sort of tests that would allow lower courts to delineate that the line between official and private conduct or when plausibly official actions are done with a corrupt motive. But I think it will then probably still be up to the trial court to
apply that test to the specific allegations. So, one of the questions will be, is there a majority of five justices that are willing to articulate a test with enough specificity to make it really clear that a lot of the things that are alleged are not plausibly official actions.
SCIUTTO: So, Leah Litman, if that would happen, let's say the Supreme Court does that, then they can go back to lower court. And then what happens, then the lower court carries out there trial in due course?
LITMAN: So. What will happen then is the lower court, the trial court is going to have to apply whatever legal tests the Supreme Court establishes to determine whether each of the allegations in the indictment fall within the official acts of a precedence such that they could be entitled to immunity, or whether instead they are private acts that fall outside at the scope of community. Then once the trial court makes that determination, there's probably going to be another fight about whether the special counsel and federal government are able to introduce evidence of official acts that might themselves be entitled to immunity and couldn't be the basis of criminal liability, but could potentially be evidenced relevant to establishing Donald Trumps motive or his intent behind this scheme.
And so, that's going to be a separate site and adding all of those questions and that additional process is going to take some time and its going to add delay and thereby decrease the odds of any pre- election trial on the election interference charges.
SCIUTTO: Yeah. Sometimes timing can be the decision.
Leah Litman, Jonathan Adler, thanks so much to both of you.
When we come back, we're going to go back to New York. There are additional developments in the criminal hush money trial of Donald Trump. We'll bring you up-to-date right after this break.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[15:31:58]
SCIUTTO: From the Supreme Court here in Washington to criminal court in lower Manhattan, the ongoing hush money trial of the former president Donald Trump.
Jeff Swartz joining us now for some analysis here. Of course, he's a former Florida judge. There is.
So I understand the direct examination of David Pecker, former publisher of American Media, that is the publisher of the "National Enquirer". It's ended now. It's under cross-examination here, and it looks like the defense lawyers are trying to drill down on the idea that the "National Enquirer" killed a lot of stories and published a lot of stories to help a lot of people out here.
What do you think of that defense as it relates to the larger argument?
SWARTZ: I think what they're trying to do is just establish that Mr. Pecker is in the business of buying stories and burying stories and putting them out there, which is what a publisher does. I didn't say journalists. I said publisher does, I think that that really is trying to just hide what was really happening here, in the context that he was doing something at the bidding of someone else to kill stories, to help him, to hide what was going on.
Whereas it was Mr. Pecker's job to try to expose stories so I'm not true some true. And that he turned down many stories that he really thought he shouldn't be publishing. I think that he said that already, too.
So he's trying to defend the way he does business is what he's trying to do.
SCIUTTO: That's fine. How does it relate to though the charges against the former president here, which comes down to fall ossifying business records to hide that the these were payments to hide a story that therefore was in the argument of the prosecutors interference in the election?
SWARTZ: Well, they really it -- so far, as far as their cross- examination is concerned, I don't see anything that really is attacking that they're just trying to muddy the waters a little bit.
The fact of the matter is that Mr. Pecker doesn't know where the money came from or how it got to Stormy Daniels. He wasn't involved in any of that, but he does know that that story that Mr. Trump wanted to hide it. He does know as it relates to Ms. McDougal, that in fact, he put out money to kind of kill the story and he knew from his conversations directly with the president and former president that, in fact, he needed to bury it because it would hurt the election and it would hurt him personally, but it would hurt the election and it would hurt what would happen is it related to his presidency.
So he understood that and that's exactly why he did what he did, to help the former president become president. And so far, they haven't addressed any of those conversations.
SCIUTTO: I mean, it seems pretty clear why prosecutors began with David Pecker. He doesn't have the Michael Cohen credibility issues given the Cohen convicted of lying prior, but he could also lay out the scheme in effect, what they were up to, any happens to have been a former friend of Donald Trump, close claims to still be a friend of his.
[15:35:05]
So that leaves with Cohen then. Is Cohen more about being the money man, how this money changed hands?
SWARTZ: Yeah, it -- the idea that the prosecution is going to present is that Mr. Cohen was nothing more than the bag man.
SCIUTTO: Uh-huh.
SWARTZ: He's the guy that deliberate the money, handled the money the way that Mr. Trump wanted it handled. That's basically what he's going to testify to, that he didn't create this scheme. He was just a facilitator. And I think that minimizes the effect of Mr. Cohen's testimony as it relates to trying to make him the fall guy.
And I think the prosecution is trying to do that by making the former president and Mr. Pecker really the conspirators here.
SCIUTTO: Jeff Swartz, not the last time we talk. Thanks so much for joining.
Our Jessica Schneider, she's been following the events inside the courtroom.
Tell us how the cross-examination of David Pecker is going now?
SCHNEIDER: Yeah. We just launched into this, Jim. And really what were seeing is first of all, with cross-examination these attorneys, the defense attorneys, are allowed to ask these leading questions kind of saying, isn't that true, or a yes or no answer? And what they're starting off with is just kind of talking about the pattern and practice of David Pecker's publishing business, in particular as it relates to "National Enquirer".
And my sense of it as we're seeing these notes coming out of the courtroom is that there really trying to portray David Pecker and his business as kind of a sleazy operation.
I mean, they're saying that, you know, you regularly killed stories. You publish stories about Donald Trump because they were popular and it was good for business and you really -- especially during "The Apprentice" years when Donald Trump really was a celebrity before he turned politician, this was a good thing you did for business.
So we're hearing them lay the groundwork. And, of course, they want a question -- they want jurors to question the credibility of this witness. We've seen prosecutors over about five plus hours of direct testimony, try to make Pecker a credible witness, have him talk about this scheme to catch and kill, how they were doing it all for the benefit of Trumps campaign.
Now, defense attorneys are coming in to really try to attack the credibility of David Pecker and casts some question as to what his motives were and talk about the fact that this was a business and he was a business guy and he was doing it for business and maybe not for necessarily all for the goodwill of Donald Trump.
So, really just launching into the beginning of cross examination now, Jim. We're expecting court to go until about 4:30. But, yeah, probably some tough questions that will come up from defense attorneys as they try to really lay question in the jurors minds about who David is and really what he was trying to accomplish.
SCIUTTO: And then what about status on the judge considering violations by Trump of the gag order -- could come as soon as today?
SCHNEIDER: Yeah. You know, we've been waiting for a few days for the judge to make his determination because, of course, prosecutors want the judge to fine Donald Trump upwards of 10,000 plus dollars. That was something that they argued earlier this week, prosecutors came to the judge again over the past day saying, your honor, Donald Trump hasn't stopped violating this gag order. We have four more instances of him violating it.
The judge said, okay, I'm going to take those four more for instance, instances into consideration. Notably, Jim, the judge said that about an hour and a half ago that he'd take those for more instances that prosecutors have pointed to into consideration. So we could get a ruling from the judge before the end of business day or, you know, he's still might consider those and come back tomorrow. So its been a question as to whether -- whether and when, or we know he will, but when the judge will actually issue this ruling concerning the gag order, it's likely he'll fine Donald Trump's something, you know, as sort of this initial, you better watch out and stopped speaking out like you have been.
SCIUTTO: Yeah, we'll see if that makes a difference because the fines they're talking about not particularly significant.
SCHNEIDER: Yeah.
SCIUTTO: Jessica Schneider, thanks so much.
When we come back, antiwar encampments growing on college campuses as police crackdown, sometimes with a heavy hand on student protests. We're going to have the latest from Columbia University coming up.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[15:42:31]
SCIUTTO: Welcome back.
Across the U.S., pro-Palestinian protests have been sweeping college campuses. At Emory University in Georgia, police forcefully cleared and arrested protesters, including at least two faculty members after they set up an encampment Thursday morning. State troopers in riot gear confronted students at the University of Texas yesterday, sometimes violently. Prosecutors have already dropped charges against the majority of the protesters who were then arrested there.
Polo Sandoval joins ne now from Columbia University where these protests initially began.
POLO SANDOVAL, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Hey, Jim.
SCIUTTO: Polo, tell us what's going on in the negotiations between students and the university because they're trying to find some sort of balanced that allows the protests to go forward, but don't then draw that forceful police response, that we saw Columbia as well last week. SANDOVAL: Right, a deal really, Jim. Now the encampment that started this massive wave of demonstrations at campus universe -- university campus throughout the country, that remains present and it remains peaceful here at the heart of Columbia University. I should say, though, the question is, when will or will university officials consider it a disturbance or an interference with campus operations? And that is at the heart of these ongoing (AUDIO GAP) an opportunity to hear just a few moments ago from one of the negotiators participating in these conversations between representatives of these students and the university.
This -- this negotiator called those ongoing negotiations not just friendly, but also focused, and that there is progress being made, but they are not over yet. We do expect to hear from campus officials in about an hour and a half or so hearing, they're really update on where the situation stands. So that will be key.
In terms of what were experiencing here are the numbers and not only as encampment present, also, you'll find signs of solidarity with Israel throughout Columbia. You see Israeli flags both large and also small. If you look here to my right, Jim, this is actually new.
And opportunities, CNN had an opportunity actually speak to the student responsible for this display. The Jewish student told us wants to make sure that there is that presence of Israeli solidarity. So I think these pictures really tell you the story of a campus divided, right?
There's still certainly a higher level of uncertainty as these negotiations continue, there were some reports coming from university officials that there was a potential deadline. We just heard from one of the negotiators -- negotiators representing the students saying that really that's more of a timeframe. So I think the clarity, hopefully, when we hear from Columbia University officials in the next hour or so, that will hopefully offer some clarity.
[15:45:08]
But I think really the main headline right now is that those negotiations hoping to avoid any sort of repeat of last week when the NYPD was asked to forcibly remove a previous encampment? That's what I'm told all sides want to try to avoid as these mentally focus, but friendly negotiations continue.
SCIUTTO: You have the authorities response to these protests, but you also have the substance of the protests here, and to be clear, help us understand -- they're not as black and white is the right term. They're not as divided as often presented in that they're as I understand it, there were Jewish students taking part in, these protests against the war in Gaza as well.
SANDOVAL: Yeah. In fact, among some of the students that were disciplined for participation these protests last week was slightly over a dozen Jewish students. They were standing in solidarity with this pro-Palestinian movement. So that point that you bring up is extremely important. And then secondly, the list of demands, it has remained constant as I just heard right now from the representatives, they want divestment and they want amnesty for this students at face some of that discipline that were arrested and suspended.
And so this is what is still being talked about right now at the table between both sides, between these students and the university as well. The issue of commencement, Jim, that's only a little over two weeks away. This area right here on the campus is usually full of thousands of people participating in that.
Now, representatives of the student groups saying that that is not something that they're concerned about. They obviously are really focused on their demands. But as you can imagine, the university that is certainly something that is in the back of their minds as a tried to work out a peaceful deal.
SCIUTTO: Polo Sandoval at Columbia, thanks so much.
When we come back, how will Donald Trumps legal entanglements impact the race for the White House? We're going to take a look with a panel of experts coming up.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
SCIUTTO: Donald Trump splitting his time and focus between the campaign and the courtroom is two different chapters of his legal challenges overlap today. I want to speak now to Alice Stewart, CNN political commentator, Republican strategist, Kate Bedingfield, CNN political commentator and former communications chief in the Biden administration.
[15:50:02]
First of both of you, I just want to ask your reactions to what you heard in the Supreme Court today because you're aware of what this country witnessed around January 6, but the efforts leading up to and after to overturn the election, and rather than the court talk about that event and the impact of it and the case to -- well, prosecute Trump for that. The discussion was about -- well, maybe presidents might be prosecuted for something frivolous somewhere down the line.
I have been first to you, Alice, what was your reaction what you heard in that court and how it affects really, not just this election, but are politics going forward?
ALICE STEWART, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: Well, and it affects every president moving forward, as you mentioned.
Look, what I took away from this as they're really focusing on the issue at hand, which has presidential immunity, and on one hand, you had attorneys for Trump saying he should be immune from anything and everything. And then the other side, they're saying that there should not be immunity in this case. And I think they're going to have to be somewhere down the middle. There's going to have to be some protections for presidents as they do their job and as they are commanders in chief of our military. There's going to have to be some protections for their actions, but I think it needs to be a case-by- case basis.
I would expect to see we're going to see somewhere in the middle are impressed with the questions of the knowledge that the Supreme Court justices had, as they always do. But I expect it to come somewhere down the middle.
SCIUTTO: Kate, I know everything is a political issue now, right, but I would have imagined that when the kinds of cases instances that were brought up before the Supreme Court were brought up, that president using Seal Team Six to take out an opponent to sell nuclear secrets, to stage a coup that folks across the political spectrum will say this shall not stand, and its clearly obvious where U.S. law and the Constitution is. And yet it's not, right?
I mean, I suppose I shouldn't be surprised by that, but, boy, I mean, those are some pretty outlandish scenarios that Trump's own lawyers said before the Supreme Court. Yeah. Sounds like an official act to me.
KATE BEDINGFIELD, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: Yeah. I mean, look, it is a pretty terrible indictment, not in a legal sense of the word, but maybe in the political sense of the word. It is a terrible indictment of kind of where our politics are, as a country that you have people sort of lining up behind that argument because they are ultimately really just trying to support Donald Trump, even when he and his legal team are making these cases that are so clearly fall outside the scope of current American law.
And it tells you a lot about how polarized our politics are, and, you know, hearing the breadth of the discussion the Supreme Court today was also, you know, certainly I won't prejudge what the court is going to do. Well, we will all see what the court decides, but it certainly felt like and I think there were a number of legal analysts who were saying to them it felt like the conversation was such that it was likely that there wouldn't be a ruling in the January 6 case prior to the election in November, which, of course, has been Donald Trump's legal and political strategy around this case from the outset.
So I think that's discouraging, frankly, I think voters deserve to have this information and have -- have the process play out. And so it's discouraging that it may not be the case that that's going to happen before November.
SCIUTTO: Alice Stewart, of course, you have the trial that is going on in New York, this over hush money payments. Donald Trump as, you know, coming in and out of the courtroom, will often say that because I'm here, I can't be out campaigning. He had Wednesday off. He went golfing in his New Jersey club here.
I wonder in your view, what is the actual impact on his campaign?
STEWART: Look, he is using the courtroom to his advantage with his base, right? Of course, his base is going to vote for him anyway, but every time he goes in and comes out of the courtroom, he gives the same spiel that this is weaponization of the DOJ, either coming after me because I'm the threat to Joe Biden. I am a victim here and this is there's no base for this, quote, unconstitutional trial here.
And that's what he will continue to say every day to secure his base. But he's also I think should take this opportunity to go after Biden and hammer home. He's got the media at his disposal. Talk about the economy, talk about the border, talk about national security, and use these opportunities to get his message out there to, who he needs to focus on, independent voters and late deciders.
But I do give them some credit. They're taking small opportunities. Of course, he went to a construction site this morning to talk to union workers. Thank them for their support and commend them for their work, I went to a bodega recently where in New York City he talked about crime and justice in street.
So he's taken unconventional opportunities to do quick photo-ops with the media, but also getting his message out when he can.
SCIUTTO: Before we go, Trump went after Biden on these protests on college campuses and he did. I'm sure you saw this, Katie. He compared them to the Charlottesville protests, where of course you had whites premises called that a peanut compared to these protests here, what's your reaction to that argument?
[15:55:05]
And are these protests at all, a political weakness or vulnerability for Biden?
BEDINGFIELD: Well, there's a really key difference between what we see going on in these campuses and Charlottesville, and Trump and Biden's reactions. Donald Trump condoned essentially what was happening in Charlottesville, said there were very fine people on both sides.
SCIUTTO: Right.
BEDINGFIELD: Biden has condemned in no uncertain terms the antisemitism that is emanating from some of these protests on campus. So those are completely different reactions.
To your broader question about whether this is an issue for Biden, I do think it is. I think this is going to be an incredibly close race. And so any issue that is that is draining enthusiasm from the Democratic base is one that Biden has to grapple with. I think he has been direct, again, about condemning both antisemitism and Islamophobia. And he's also talked about the right of young people and people across the country to protest peacefully. So I do think this will be an element. And again, any issue that is roiling the Democratic base is one that the Biden campaign should, should focus on and be aware of.
But they're also a whole host of other issues that are going to be critically important in determining the outcome of this election, abortion, the economy immigration. So at the end of the day, this will be one in a in a number of issues that are going to be critical in November. SCIUTTO: In a tight race.
BEDINGFIELD: In a very tight race.
SCIUTTO: Alice Stewart, Kate Bedingfield, thanks so much to both of you.
STEWART: Thanks, Jim.
SCIUTTO: Thanks so much to all of you for joining me today. I'm Jim Sciutto in Washington.
"QUEST MEANS BUSINESS" is up next.
