Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Live Event/Special

Pecker: Notified Cohen If Women Were Selling Stories About Trump; Pecker: Trump, Cohen Asked Me How I Could "Help The Campaign"; Former Tabloid Exec David Pecker Testifying For Second Day; Pecker: Didn't "Catch And Kill" Stories About Trump Before August 2015; Pecker Describes Running Negative Stories About Trump's Rivals. Aired 12- 12:30p ET

Aired April 23, 2024 - 12:00   ET

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

[12:00:00]

KAITLAN COLLINS, CNN ANCHOR: Its remarkable though, because its a presidential candidate who's getting tipped off by the -- one of the publishers of one, you know, the king of tabloids really when it came to the National Enquirer. And the decisions of boosting trump, he was talking about popular to covers of Trump world.

And also having Michael Cohen, Donald Trump's attorney in (inaudible) be able to go and then pursue those stories to make sure not only that they weren't publishing the National Enquirer, but anyone else. And Pecker says, you know, he thought that a lot of women would come out to try to sell their stories, because -- and I'm quoting David Pecker now. Trump was the most -- was well known is the most eligible bachelor.

BRIAN STELTER, SPECIAL CORRESPONDENT, VANITY FAIR: Well, that's debatable. But I think this speaks to the mood music of today's testimony, which is that in the tabloid world. In the tabloid world, knowing where the bodies are buried can be a compliment. It can be -- it can be a strategy, and Michael Cohen and David Pecker, they knew where some of these proverbial bodies were buried. They knew about these secrets they were trying to keep.

Now, we know from Ronan Farrow's book Catch and Kill, that there was actually a moment in time in the inquirer office in 2016, where staffers alleged that documents were destroyed. The documents were being shredded. I'm really curious to see if Pecker asked about that on the stand. Because there's so much about this that Pecker's never talked about before in public until right now.

COLLINS: Yeah. Brian Stelter, that's a great question. And we'll see if David Pecker does get asked about documents maybe being destroyed. Brian Stelter, I would love for you to stand by because you do have so much insight into this world. And I should know if David Pecker has just said, and I'm quoting him now, I think it was a mutual benefit. It would help his campaign and it would also help me.

And Paula and Phil, you know, this is remarkable to see -- obviously, we should note this is a relationship that goes back to. They were helping suppress stories back during the apprentice years even. And Pecker saying that stories about Bill and Hillary Clinton are great sellers for the magazine, obviously not ones that were often positive for them, maybe if ever positive for them.

PAULA REID, CNN CHIEF LEGAL AFFAIRS CORRESPONDENT: Yeah, probably never positive. But this is where this tries to do possible criminal conduct, which is fine to suppress or amplify stories while he's a star on The Apprentice. It is something completely different. Once he is officially a candidate for the presidency, then there are rules and regulations that you have to follow.

So, if you are -- as we know, they will eventually start to exchange money right, for to suppress these stories, that becomes a potentially illegal liability. And of course, why we're all here today until there's an update. So, the prosecutor asked Pecker how Trump reacted, to Pecker suggestion, he would continue running negative stories about Bill and Hillary Clinton.

He was pleased, Pecker said, and that matters because the whole point of the prosecution's argument is that they were doing this bill to help Donald Trump and to hurt his rivals in the campaign to help usher him into the White House as he was running against Hillary Clinton. That seems to be what the prosecution is getting at there.

PHIL MATTINGLY, CNN CHIEF DOMESTIC CORRESPONDENT: It's clearly what they're getting at as explicit as it could possibly be that not only did they make very clear that negative stories about opponents would be written positive stories about the former president. Then the candidate would be written as well, and that the former president was quite pleased when he would see negative stories about Hillary Clinton.

We'll stuck on the idea that Trump was the most eligible bachelor according to David Pecker, given the fact he was married during a lot of this time, trying to figure out exactly what that was referring to. But I think what this builds towards and what it's been making very laying -- very bare of course, the last couple minutes as we've been getting these updates is this was how it worked in a different time in Donald Trump's life when perhaps this was normal and this was how transactional, and this was mutually beneficial.

What changed in 2015 was he became a candidate for the presidency of the United States. And when David Pecker lays out explicitly through Michael Cohen. Michael Cohen, once he was the eyes and ears and pass information along to Cohen, Cohen would kill the story.

Cohen would figure out a way to make sure a story didn't run, or Cohen would figure out how to pay off somebody, so that story didn't run. That is very explicit of the process that was in play. It may have been OK, and how business as usual operated in the pre candidate days, but that changes when it becomes the candidate.

COLLINS: Well, and that goes back to what Pecker was saying about this being mutually beneficial that it would -- it would help him because they'd have stories to sell -- if negative stories about Hillary Clinton and Bill Clinton did well. And also, he's been making the case that would help Trump as he is running this campaign for the White House.

REID: Exactly. And most of this is probably going to fall under OK, business as usual. Even in the context of a campaign until money starts changing hands, changing hands between the National Enquirer and Karen McDougal, a woman who alleged to have an affair between the National Enquirer and a doorman who falsely alleged Trump had an out- of-wedlock child.

And then of course, Cohen, giving money to Stormy Daniels, and then the crime that prosecuted alleging here as they tried to cover up what that actually was and they're really violating campaign finance laws. So, that's why this exchange is so significant.

COLLINS: What do you think it's headed right now? Where -- I mean, Paula, with your familiarity with the courtroom, I mean, where are they headed with this line of questioning?

REID: So, I think we're going to get through the 2015 meeting. We're probably going to go through the other stories that they helped to either amplify, negative stories about his opponents, stories that they helped to catch and kill related to more -- then candidate Trump.

[12:05:00]

And then I think his testimony will probably not end but wrap up in and around when he hands off the idea that Stormy Daniels is shopping her story. I mean that's really where his usefulness as a witness kind of ceases because he was not directly involved in payments to her. But like Phil said earlier, there's always things we don't know. There might be additional questions that take David Pecker further.

COLLINS: And what about -- how they purchased stories and how that worked? Because I imagine that line of questioning is going to come up because David Pecker was saying yesterday with the threshold was 10 grand and above. He had to personally review what's at the heart of -- this is how they bought Karen McDougal's story about having an affair with Trump.

And so, I imagine prosecutors want to ask well, did you do that before when you were helping him with these stories? Were you buying stories then? Or was that something that you did when he was running for president? And Pecker was saying that when he told Michael Cohen about a negative story, Michael Cohen would vet the story, and then he would go to the individual publication to make sure it wasn't published.

STELTER: And let's be abundantly clear. I'm pretty sure all three of us have examples or have been through the process of Michael Cohen trying to kill a story back when he was working very closely with the former president was very aggressive, was often somewhat threatening.

REID: Tuesday. Yes.

STELTER: And that was part of the process. And the way that Pecker was laying it out and making very clear that that's one of the ways that Cohen would work but that it was dual prong to some degree. And Pecker continuing to say his agreements with Trump were not put into writing, it was just an agreement among friends.

COLLINS: That's important.

STELTER: That's I think tracks with everything that we've heard about how Trump operates to some degree.

COLLINS: But also they're basically saying, there may not be a written document. It doesn't mean there wasn't an agreement.

STELTER: Right. And that's the importance of the meeting and supporting these conversations. And it's important. It underscores the importance of Pecker making very explicit. One that this was a Trump- Cohen idea for the meeting. And two, very explicit what they wanted. What he thought he could deliver and why that's mutually beneficial.

REID: And when you get to the point where it's just depressing negative stories about Trump, it's unclear how this benefited the National Enquirer. That's one thing I think prosecutors are going to start to really zeroing on that this was really solely done to benefit Trump in the campaign.

COLLINS: Oh. So, you're saying that you believe that they'll get to the point where it's saying, well, you were doing this, but it wasn't actually helping you because it was only helping the candidate for president.

REID: Exactly. There's not a lot of business benefit to them in just buying and suppressing a story, right? It's beneficial to them if they have a little scoop or an exclusive picture or the ratings, if their readers are interested in it. But if you're just catching and killing the story, what is the benefit to the National Enquirer?

COLLINS: But also, Paula, you know, the significance of these agreements not being put in writing because, you know, we've talked so much about the evidence here, the documents. You have, if this isn't put in writing, prosecutors seem to be trying to say, well, there's a reason for that because that was the history of it. And Dylan -- and David Pecker has testified that he told Dylan Howard, who was the editor in chief of the National Enquirer, quote, the agreement that I made has to be highly, highly confidential.

REID: Oh, dear. Well, it's not as if Trump's identity was a monogamous family man, right? It's not like that can be the argument for why this had to be highly confidential. They'll try to argue that, but it was well known that Trump was not monogamous that he had mistresses. So, it's going to be really interesting to see what prosecutors do with that comment.

We learned that Trump is sitting forward in his seat, but he's not really reacting to any of Pecker's testimony at this point. And I think prosecutors' kind of laid the groundwork for this highly confidential idea yesterday, because they were talking about how the secret email address. Pecker said, I told him, we're going to try to help the campaign. And to do that, I want to keep this as quiet as possible. COLLINS: I mean, I don't think the jury is taking that because they're saying basically, we had to keep it a secret because they knew it would be problematic.

REID: Yeah. You don't keep things quiet. If you think everything's on the up and up. And as I was saying, I think this is also what prosecutors were doing yesterday. When they were talking about his email, that he didn't even want his assistant to have access to, either suggesting, again, a cover up is a key part of this. This is just one little part of the overall narrative for the fact that he wanted this to be highly confidential. Keep it as quiet as possible.

And again, what they suggested yesterday, the email address that only goes to him and how involved he is. This is all setting up the idea that there was this effort to help Trump going into the 2016 election, and they knew this may not be on the up and up.

STELTER: And it also seems to foreshadow on some level the idea of hey, if it's not in writing, or if perhaps it wasn't openly discussed, or it was kept very quiet. That's actually the norm for him over the course of this entire process. So, in future -- when future witnesses talked about how -- well, we don't actually have evidence on paper. We don't have a signature on something saying, this is going to happen. They've already established that this is how he operates in this specific case going forward.

COLLINS: Brian Stelter, you're still with us, listening to all of this, and you have done a lot of reporting on the guy on the witness stand right now David Pecker, the National Enquirer. I mean, Paula's point about, he had an email that even his assistant couldn't see. He had told the editor in chief Dylan Howard, who you covered as well that this was all highly, highly confidential. They knew that this is something that could be problematic if it became this public as it is becoming right now.

[12:10:00]

STELTER: Yeah. That's exactly right. That was news to me. By the way that secret hidden email address that revelation yesterday that was not known among Pecker staffers at the enquirer, for example. You know, I was thinking about some of the targets of the enquirer or some of the victims, some of the people who have been smeared by the tabloid in the past. They have likened to these tactics to blackmail, to bribery.

But what we're also hearing about is some of the more run of the mill work the enquirer would do, right. Dirty up pictures of Hillary Clinton and make Donald Trump look like a celebrity. You know, it was that kind of run of the mill work that was helping Trump as well as this more sensitive work that we're hearing Pecker now confessed to, now admit to in real time. It all comes down to three letters, Kaitlan.

Within the enquirer, these people were known as FOP's, friends of Pecker. Donald Trump was on the list. He was an FOP. And so, he was treated very, very kindly. And as we're hearing, he was treated in way he is that were not befitting a presidential candidate, but instead just a friend from Florida.

COLLINS: What do you make, Brian, of how secret they tried to keep all this because David Pecker just testified that leaks were very prevalent in the organization. And he didn't want anyone else to know about this agreement that he, Donald Trump and Michael Cohen hatched. And so that's why he wanted to keep it very confidential.

And as the prosecution is highlighting now, they say the evidence they're presenting is a collection of headlines that are in the National Enquirer are not the actual articles themselves. But what you're hearing from David Pecker is he was worried this would get out.

STELTER: Yes. And maybe a good reason to be worried. I mean, he recognized that his friend who was running for president was vulnerable, that he had many secrets. And so, he was enlisted in a campaign to help keep those on -- to cover those up. You know, it's not just a hush money trial, it's a cover up trial, right?

I think it was revealing yesterday, when we heard from Pecker for a few minutes. Pecker talked about how -- all he cared about were his covers. The covers of the magazine. That's the kind of thing you hear not from a journalist, not from a newsman, you hear that from a marketer. You hear that from a campaign strategist.

And what we're hearing from Pecker today is more of the same, that he's a marketer, that he's a campaign strategist. But look where it got him, right. Look where it got him. He has lost his role, right? He's lost his magazine. In some ways, he's been disgraced by all of this. And now he has to testify against his longtime pal. So, maybe there were reasons to try to keep these secrets.

COLLINS: Yeah. He got an immunity agreement with the government. Brian Stelter, standby. We just got another update. It says among the headlines that the prosecution is showing is Donald Trump healthiest individual ever elected. Jake, I think that only rivals that he was the most eligible bachelor. He's also the healthiest individual ever elected.

JAKE TAPPER, CNN ANCHOR & CHIEF WASHINGTON CORRESPONDENT: Yeah. It certainly is an interesting headline and rather un-journalistic. Let's continue talking about this. Because, you know, I think that there is this temptation because it's David Pecker in the National Enquirer in such silly headlines as healthiest individual ever elected to take this not seriously.

But I'm looking not by people here, but maybe some people watching outside this room. And I'm looking at some of the headlines about Ted Cruz. And if you will permit me to defend Ted Cruz for a second. Ted Cruz was completely slimed by the National Enquirer on behalf of Donald Trump, whether or not Donald Trump was directed to do it, or it was directing David Pecker to do this or just was enjoying it.

If you Google Ted Cruz and National Enquirer, you'll see Ted Cruz's father linked to JFK assassination, complete and utter nonsense. And even worse, there's a different cover from around that time. Ted Cruz is five secret mistresses, which not only slime Ted Cruz but slimed five women that did not have relationships -- inappropriate relationships with Ted Cruz.

Judge Merchan telling the jury the exhibit is being entered for the limited purpose of showing the articles republished and when they aren't in evidence for any other purposes. We're talking about the National Enquirer headline about Donald Trump being the healthiest president ever.

But beyond that silliness, Dana Bash, Ted Cruz did not deserve this. The five women and his family, his wife and two daughters did not deserve this. There's nothing funny about this. It's disgusting. It's certainly in the realm of freedom of the press. We have a lot of wonderful freedoms, but people like David Pecker test those freedoms by printing libelous sleaze.

Pecker right now explaining how Michael Cohen played a role in the negative stories. The National Enquirer ran about Trump's political opponents, such as the ones I'm talking about right now. And whatever people out there think about Ted Cruz. Ted Cruz should be criticized for his ideas.

[12:15:00]

He should not have his personal life lied about on behalf of this gentleman's agreement between Donald Trump and David Pecker, which without question played a role in Donald Trump becoming the Republican presidential nominee in 2016.

DANA BASH, CNN ANCHOR & CNN'S CHIEF POLITICAL CORRESPONDENT: And now when you Google Ted Cruz and Donald Trump, you're going to see all the fawning things that Ted Cruz says about Donald Trump. Putting that aside, these are the personal issues. You also remember some of the really ridiculous things that the National Enquirer would do like, saying that Ted Cruz's father was involved in JFK assassination. I mean, they were laughable.

Having said that, they -- there's no question that they did. As you said, Jake, played a role as the nominating process was happening. When it was at the end of the day, just Donald Trump and Ted Cruz left running for the Republican nomination.

TAPPER: So, David Pecker right now explaining on the stand how Michael Cohen played a role. Pecker quote, Michael Cohen would call me and say, we would like you to run a negative article on the certain, let's say, for argument's sake on Ted Cruz. Let me bring in Brian Stelter, who works for Vanity Fair, and is familiar with the David Pecker story very well.

And Brian, Pecker was saying that Cohen would send him information, quote, and that was the basis of our story and then we would embellish it from there. Basically, he was a tabloid magazine hitman on behalf of the Trump campaign.

STELTER: That's a great way to put it. Great to see you, Jake. I think we are seeing how it's not even sausage, it's worse than sausage. It is how the scummiest kinds of media clickbait content are made. In this case made and then printed and then put on newsstands in front of millions of people.

TAPPER: Yeah. The Pecker would say that Cohen --

STELTER: I think what's important -- as we think about the enquirer.

TAPPER: Pecker would say that Cohen told him that he wasn't part of the campaign, he was on the outside as Trump's personal attorney. So, this wasn't the campaign doing it. It was Michael Cohen as Trump's attorney doing this on behalf of Trump and his campaign.

STELTER: Freelancing, right. We're working as the attorney. It was striking to hear Trump yesterday say that -- actually, Michael Cohen had lots of clients, many clients. That's not really true. You might remember Fox as Sean Hannity was once named as a client. And then Hannity denied it. Trump was really Cohen's main client and doing his bidding for years. And we're seeing exactly what those dirty details were now.

TAPPER: Pecker just said that Michael Cohen seemed to have an informal role in the campaign, or he quote, injected himself into it. It doesn't really matter if he was doing this as a manifestation of being on the campaign or not. He was doing this on behalf of Jamie Gangel. He was doing this on behalf of Donald Trump.

JAMIE GANGEL, CNN SPECIAL CORRESPONDENT: Absolutely. And, you know, you call these negative stories lies. But there's another issue. People believe them.

TAPPER: Right.

GANGEL: That's the real problem here. And that's why Donald Trump was able to get rid of someone like Cruz for many other reasons. I'm also curious what the impact on the jury is right now, listening to David Pecker. We were talking yesterday about whether Donald Trump is larger than life or as some potential juror said just some guy. I think listening to this may very well diminish Donald Trump.

LAURA COATES, CNN ANCHOR & CHIEF LEGAL ANALYST: You know, what David Pecker -- I know everyone is -- I'm not a avid reader of the National Enquirer. But it was first published back in 1926. There's been an audience for it for that long. And so, although we talk about the salacious headlines, the negative headlines, the false headlines as well.

Remember, we're talking about the credibility of David Pecker compared to the credibility of the stories. These are two different propositions here. He's well aware -- of course, Pecker is all saying that Michael was physically in every aspect of whatever the campaign was working on, at least when he was physically there, tying again Michael Cohen and the knowledge of this actual tabloid magazine.

But I say this to suggest, the jury is going to look at this through the lens of, do I think David Pecker is credible. Not do I think that bubbles the monkey was married to somebody. Not do I want to ask about the other connection that was actually really headlines of him. So that the jury has to focus, and the prosecution has to by bringing him out there has to focus on, do you believe that he had this relationship with Donald Trump, who was part of the catch and kill pattern. Those (inaudible) 2016 campaign, don't lose sight of the headlines of the enquirer. And we were trying to assess his credibility.

TAPPER: So, David Pecker just said, Michael Cohen was physically involved, even though he wasn't necessarily a member of the campaign. Pecker is speaking towards the jury. Many of the jurors' heads are turning to look at him as he answers questions and then back toward the prosecutor bouncing back and forth like a tennis match. Karen?

KAREN FRIEDMAN AGNIFILO, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: This is how the prosecution is going -- is corroborating what Michael Cohen is going to say, because don't forget Michael Cohen was convicted for lying under oath. And in their opening, they even said -- both sides talked about how Michael Cohen is such a flawed witness. And the prosecution said, there's going to be a lot of corroboration of Michael Cohen.

[12:20:00]

This is exactly how they're doing it by putting David Pecker on the stand because so much of what Michael Cohen is going to testify to won't be for the first time the jury hears it, it'll be the second time. So, it will reinforce --

TAPPER: It's about the credibility of Cohen. Steinglass as the prosecutor, now showing Pecker the negative stories that the National Enquirer ran, I'm sure we'll hear which ones they are, but I'm just looking on online right now. And it's Hillary Clinton six months to live. Hillary Clinton brain cancer drama. Ted Cruz's father linked to Kennedy assassination. Hillary frame to Trump family, and on and on and on.

ELIE HONIG, CNN SENIOR LEGAL ANALYST: You know, I think the sleaze factor is going to cut both ways here. On the one hand, if you're a prosecutor, the D.A.'s office, you like it because the jury is -- this is grotesque offensive stuff. That's good. You want the jury feeling like -- all these guys, including -- most importantly, the defendant were involved in this gross business. On the other hand, they can't let the jury think that this is a trial about morality. Donald Trump is not on trial here for sleaze in the fourth degree.

TAPPER: Pecker is now looking at headlines about Ted Cruz, including from February 2016. Ted Cruz shamed by a porn star.

HONIG: Yeah. I'm not sure which one that is.

COATES: I mean, also remember these -- this is about catch and kill as well. So, of all the negative headlines are going to see. As discussing as you're talking about, there were stories that they felt could not be published because it would have an impact on the campaign of Donald Trump.

And so, for the jury to hear -- looking at just like, well, hold on, you want it to catch and kill that story, not because they were not used to having bad headlines. But because this was the timing of it. It happened in 2016 after the fallout of the Access Hollywood tape. There was a reason that suddenly these could not be published.

HONIG: There was an offensive element to this and a defensive element. This Ted Cruz stuff that Hillary Clinton, that's the offensive stuff. They're attacking their opponents. What's more relevant -- they're both relevant. But what's more relevant here is the defensive to catch and kill. Let's find damaging stories and take care of it,

TAPPER: Pecker says that while they were preparing an article like the one on Ted Cruz, they would communicate with Michael Cohen. The story about the porn star by the way just has to do with an actress who showed up in a casting call, was in a Ted Cruz commercial. And then it came out. She had done some adult films. And that was the big scandal.

But of course, if you -- if you didn't read the story, you would know that there really wasn't much to it. David Pecker would say, we would also send Cohen the PDFs of the story before it was published. So, they would send the entire tabloid cover in PDF form to Michael Cohen to give him a little preview of what's going on. Tim Parlatore?

TIM PARLATORE, FORMER TRUMP ATTORNEY: You know, the problem that the defense has with this is all of this conduct is grotesque. It's a moral. It's not something you can defend. But the issue that they have to really confront is how do they present that in front of the jury. Because all of the stuff we're talking about is legal.

TAPPER: Right.

PARLATORE: You know, none of this is a crime.

TAPPER: Well, except unless, I mean, the argument, Karen, you correct me if I'm wrong. But the argument is that David Pecker doing this was a campaign contribution.

AGNIFILO: Exactly. And that -- it's an in-kind campaign contribution if you're paying for. If it's part of the campaign, as Laura was saying, this is the whole strategy. The timing, it's about --

TAPPER: But look at this, David Pecker says Michael Cohen would look at the PDFs, comment on them. So, they would add content based on what Michael Cohen was suggesting.

AGNIFILO: And there's all sorts of limits on how much anybody individually can contribute to a campaign and corporations can contribute to a campaign if at all. So, by paying these large sums of money, that's considered a donation.

TAPPER: Although, Tim, we should note, Pecker said he does not recall Cohen, saying he was sharing these PDFs or headlines with the boss, which according to Pecker is how Cohen referred to Trump.

PARLATORE: That's interesting, because that is something that a lot of people -- that I have found like to do, where they say, oh, the boss wants this. The boss is -- and whenever they're saying that there's a 50 percent chance of whether he actually knows that or not.

TAPPER: Right, right.

COATES: In Trump world?

PARLATORE: Yeah, yeah. If there's a good chance that they're just making it up and using his name to get their own way. But the fact that he's not using it is interesting because that does create a level of separation.

TAPPER: So, prosecutors show another negative headline from March 2016 Ted Cruz sex scandal, five secret mistresses, which is what the one I referred to a few minutes ago. And Dana Bash, you know, these are not five myths. These are not women that that Ted Cruz had relationships with.

This was just out and out sliming. And they used pictures of these women. And it was really offensive. Steinglass, the prosecutor asked Pecker, if he discussed this article about these five alleged mistresses with Michael Cohen, quote, we would have discussed that. Yes, Pecker says.

BASH: I feel compelled to say this and hopefully everybody out there watching, understand this, but it's worth saying out loud. This is not how journalism works.

TAPPER: It's not journalism, it's by the way --

[12:25:00]

BASH: It's not.

TAPPER: It's not politics either, normally, like in terms of accusing people.

(CROSSTALK)

BASH: Yeah. Well, there's that. But also, just in terms of the -- of the symbol dyadic relationship -- the transactional relationship that Pecker and Donald Trump and Michael Cohen, and people working for Donald Trump had. These are not conversations that ever -- are ever had. So, when we're talking about well, it's their -- the National Enquirer and it's a First Amendment right. And you know, it maybe that's true, that it falls into that category. But that's not journalism.

COATES: It's also not the point, though. I mean, he's talking about the jury. All I care about is, do you think this is how it works? And can I illuminate the fact that this is actually a crime? That's what I have to show to you. I have to say, you might think and of course, we're going to come down to this as a defense and saying, this is the way things work.

People wake up. We publish bad stories. We try to undermine people. But the prosecution has to govern and say, OK, you might think that but here's a statute. Here's why he had a responsibility to not falsify business records as a result. Here's what they did wrong. If the prosecution cannot get over that hurdle of the jurors thinking. This is how scum beggary work. Then you have a failing case. You have to get past the idea of the pearl clutching of the headlines and onto the idea of cooking the books. Did you prove it?

TAPPER: And here's the prosecutor showing the May 2016 headline. Donald Trump blasts Ted Cruz's dad for photo with JFK assassin. It was not a photograph of Ted Cruz's dad with the JFK assassin (inaudible). Well, Steinglass, the prosecutor asked David Pecker whether the articles were published in the spring of 2016.

And if Cruz was gaining popularity around that time, I believe so, Pecker says and this is significant, Karen, because Ted Cruz was a threat to Donald Trump's candidacy. So, the National Enquirer sprung into action to destroy Ted Cruz and help Donald Trump.

AGNIFILO: One small point that I think you're going to hear come back up in summation, when the prosecutor sum up is something that Pecker said. He says, I don't recall, Michael Cohen saying he shared the headlines with Trump. And they're going to say that shows you that David Pecker is telling the truth. Because if he were lying, he would make it better. He would make it stronger. He would say things like that. But he's telling you the truth how he remembered.

TAPPER: And here is the Steinglass showing headlines about Marco Rubio and asking whether they ran when Rubio was gaining popularity. And Pecker says, he believes so as well. I forgot about the National Enquirer slamming Marco Rubio, they were doing a whole bunch of stuff. They're alleging all sorts of wild parties. Tim?

PARLATORE: You know, there's a risk for the prosecution because again, a lot of this stuff is not criminal. And I disagree that some of this would be in campaign contribution because the Supreme Court's holding in citizens united did kind of move this outside of that. And so if they spent too much time on this, especially right at the beginning and an appellate court looks at it and say, you've prejudiced this jury by presenting all this information that is, you know, salacious, amoral but not criminal.

Then is the type of thing that can improperly sway the jury to the other sides. I think that, to me, this may actually turn out to be a misstep by the prosecution by spending so much time on this, when really this case is about the business record entries of the payments to Michael Cohen, which have nothing to do with any of this.

HONIG: I agree with that. They have to be careful. As they're putting up their fourth and fifth headline, they better put the brakes on that. There's an important point about credibility when it comes to David Pecker. The Southern District of New York looked very carefully at this case, ultimately decided against charging Donald Trump but in the course of doing that, they assessed David Pecker and Michael Cohen.

They gave David Pecker, a non-prosecution agreement, which means they trusted him. You don't give a non-prosecution agreement unless you're comfortable putting that person on the stand. They rejected Michael Cohen. They wrote a sentencing letter to the judge saying, we did not find him fully credible. Keep that in mind. Not binding on the jury, but important indicators.

TAPPER: And just, Jamie, I'll get to see you in a second. But just like December 2015 National Enquirer has a headline. Family man, Marco Rubio's love child stunner. I mean, just complete and utter filth and complete and utter nonsense. And again, these are not victimless crimes. Marco Rubio is a family man. He's a father, with a happily married wife and four children. It's just absolutely disgusting. And this is not just fun and games and what politics, or journalism are about at all.

GANGEL: I'm not the lawyer. So, you guys may be right on that. But let me play the part of the jury for -- a juror for a minute. To me, what this goes to is the context and the timing, that there was a pattern of behavior here against political opponents originally against Republican primary opponents.

And then where are we in the end October, two weeks before the general election. So as a juror, I mean, we don't know what other testimony is coming. But this sets up to me that there was a long, repeated pattern.

TAPPER: And look at this, Pecker says that Trump introduced him to Steve Bannon in October 2016. The next year and Trump told him, he thought all of us could work very well together.