Return to Transcripts main page

The Lead with Jake Tapper

Trump's Longtime Friend Testifies; Pecker: Trump, Cohen Asked Me How I Could "Help The Campaign"; Protests Escalate At Columbia University And Other Schools. Aired 4-5p ET

Aired April 23, 2024 - 16:00   ET

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

[16:00:01]

BORIS SANCHEZ, CNN HOST: And the Russian government has yet to actually provide any evidence to support its claim against him.

BRIANNA KEILAR, CNN HOST: Yeah, that's right. It's one of those cases we've got to keep watching. I can't believe it's gone on this long, but it's so important.

SANCHEZ: Absolutely.

KEILAR: THE LEAD WITH JAKE TAPPER starts right now.

(MUSIC)

JAKE TAPPER, CNN HOST: Trump's relationship with the "National Enquirer" was even sleazier than it looked in 2016.

THE LEAD starts right now.

Former tabloid publisher David Pecker, under oath and on the record, revealing just how far Donald Trump wins, allegedly, to protect his 2016 presidential campaign. But when it comes to whether Trump committed a felony in the process, how damaging was today's testimony. And that infamous meeting in August 2015, what Pecker said went down in that room that could hurt Donald Trumps case nearly nine years later.

Plus, Trump's legal team admonished in court today, scolded by the judge over social media posts by the former president that prosecutors say violated a gag order. Coming up, the tough decision for the judge deciding how to punish Trump.

(MUSIC)

TAPPER: Welcome to THE LEAD. I'm Jake Tapper.

We're going to start with our law and justice lead, a dramatic day of testimony in the New York hush money cover-up trial. Tabloid mogul David Pecker testified in front of his longtime friend, Donald Trump, revealing details about there shall we call it symbiotic relationship and the extent of the Trump teams say, over the popular national enquirer tabloid, including weighing in on running negative stories about Trumps political opponents. Now, to refresh your memory of how deep in the tank the "National Enquirer" was for Trump in 2016.

The editors were not only buying negative stories about Trump in order to not run them, to bury them, to hide them from the public. But here's a look at some of those covers of the "National Enquirer" during the campaign. "Hillary: six months to live" blared the tabloid nine years ago. "Hillary going to jail", and one that said "Corrupt".

On the stand today, David Pecker also revealed how at a meeting in 2015, former President Trump and his attorney and fixer Michael Cohen, asked Pecker how he could quote, help the campaign. Pecker testified he agreed to be the eyes and ears of the campaign and would notify Michael Cohen if he ever heard of any women selling any stories about Trump than he would act to buy those stories and then kill them to benefit the Trump campaign, he testified.

Michael Cohen would also call Pecker and ask the "Enquirer" to run negative stories about Trump's opponents, such as Marco Rubio or Ted Cruz.

Here's one of the ridiculous Ted Cruz smears on a cover shown in court today from May 2016. "Ted Cruz father linked to JFK assassination!"

Now, obviously, this is deranged nonsense, but we should know this story came out in May 2016 when Pecker testified Ted Cruz was gaining popularity during the Republican primaries.

Another sleazy, baseless hit piece against Ted Cruz, Cruz's five secret mistresses, not true, vile, unfair to Cruz, horrible to his wife, horrific to their two daughters unfair to those five women.

Pecker also testified about the first time he ever paid to kill a story about Donald Trump. It was apparently November 2015 and Pecker had former "National Enquirer" editor and chief Dylan Howard pay $30,000 to a doorman who was selling and apparently false story about Donald Trump allegedly father and his son with someone not his wife.

Pecker said that the story turned out to be 1,000 percent false. But quote, I made the decision to purchase the story because of the potential embarrassment and would have been to the campaign and to Mr. Trump Pecker testified about a second catch and kill deal, this time involving 1998 playmate of the year, Karen McDougal and the ten-month romance. She alleges she had with Mr. Trump. Pecker testified today that when Donald Trump heard that her story might come out, Trump told Pecker, quote, anytime you do anything like this it always gets out.

Okay. Who knows what Donald Trump was thinking when Mr. Pecker testified all of this in court today? When the "National Enquirer" endorsed Trump back in 2016, Trump, after all, returned the favor.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DONALD TRUMP, FORMER U.S. PRESIDENT & 2024 PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: I've always said, why didn't the "National Enquirer" get the Pulitzer Prize for Edwards and O.J. Simpson and all of these things?

(END VIDEO CLIP) [16:05:05]

TAPPER: I think maybe we got an idea today why the "National Enquirer" hasn't been awarded any Pulitzer prizes.

CNN's Kara Scannell was in court for all this.

Kara, how attentive were jurors, as all of this sleaze was displayed before them?

KARA SCANNELL, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Jake, it was a very short court session today. David Pecker was on the and for just over two hours. And during his testimony, the jurors appear to be paying close attention. You could see when Pecker was testifying, he often looked at the jury box when he was answering some of the questions. And you could see the jurors eyes following him back to the prosecutor, who would then ask the follow-up question.

So, a bit like a tennis match for their heads going back and forth. We also saw there was some evidence introduced today, some emails. This agreement, that was painted Trumps the doorman at Trump Tower that came into evidence and you can see the jurors looking down at the monitors. They all have a monitor that shows what the email is that's being displayed to the courtroom and also to them individually.

So we saw a lot of them looking down, paying attention to the exhibits that were being entered into evidence today, but could see some people were pretty engaged, paying attention following the testimony and following the back-and-forth between the questions.

TAPPER: It's hard to imagine them not paying attention. It was rather riveting.

Kara, courts out tomorrow, but it sounds as though David Pecker will be back on the stand Thursday after all, they didn't get to the big crescendo here, the Stormy Daniels' catch and kill. What should we expect on Thursday?

SCANNELL: Right. I mean, today, David Pecker with setting this up, explaining what prosecutors say was this key August 2015 meeting where this alleged conspiracy was hatched between Trump, Michael Cohen, and David Pecker. So when he is back on this in on Thursday, he will then begin to describe the Karen McDougal deal.

We got just the beginning of this today where they learned about her allegation of a romantic relationship with Trump, and they're figuring out what to do with it. When he left us 20 today was that he was being called frequently by the -- by Michael Cohen who wanted to know where things stood. So that will pick up on Thursday, understanding how this deal ended up being one of these catch and kills where AMI paid $150,000 start to go away and then shifting into the Stormy Daniels payment that is at the heart of this case.

And what that transfer and how am I found out about it and how it ultimately led to Michael Cohen being the one to pay the $130,000 that then prosecutor Peter say Trump reimbursed in with. So that we'll get to the key elements of this case when Pecker is back on the stand on Thursday.

TAPPER: All right. Kara Scannell outside the courthouse in Manhattan, thanks so much.

Joining us to discuss is Jeremy Saland, a former prosecutor with Manhattan district attorney, as well as trial attorney Misty Marris.

Welcome to both you.

Jeremy, let me start with you because the prosecution argued today, quote, the entire case is predicated on the idea that there was a conspiracy to influence the election in 2016. In your view, how helpful has Pecker's testimony been to this central argument of a conspiracy, even though they haven't charged anyone with conspiracy?

JEREMY SALAND, FORMER PROSECUTOR: Well, I think you can say Josh Steinglass and the prosecutors did a fabulous job. They ask the right questions, and they got the right answers. You've heard from so many different pieces here. You hear about Steve Bannon. You hear, you know, about going to signal which is an app to cover up communications, not being uncertain phones. You hear about why there isn't a formal agreement between Donald Trump and David Pecker. You understand that things were being run by Michael Cohen to confirm that the story should be run or shouldn't be run.

You've got all well the foundational pieces, the bricks, if you will, you know, to build this foundation and were only in the beginning, but he did a fabulous job, yet to be cross-examined, but were moving in the right direction for the prosecution.

TAPPER: Misty, notably, David Pecker testified that Trump was cautious and frugal in his handling of money, so much so that he personally reviewed invoices and signed checks. He called them -- I think he called them meticulous. In your experience, is that enough to prove to the jury that Trump had to have been aware of any falsified business records and the idea that they're paying Michael Cohen to reimburse him for these hush money payments as opposed to just filing off money for a retainer?

MISTY MARRIS, TRIAL ATTORNEY: Yeah. This is a really important part of the prosecutions case. Remember, the defense called the 34 -- they call the 34 pieces of paper as far as the falsification of the business records. It's very, very critical for Donald Trump to be aware of those falsification of business records, and then the second piece is in furtherance of another crime, which in this case is likely to be a violation of New York election law.

And that's why this conspiracy, this aspect of the meeting of the minds between Pecker, Cohen and Trump is central to the prosecution's case.

Now the flip side is that we anticipate Donald Trump argued there's lots of reasons to kill stories about affairs, could have to do with reputation, could have to do with his wife.

[16:10:04] But Pecker testified today that this was directly related to the election. So to your point, Jake, his awareness of all of these circumstances and Donald Trump's participation and being involved in the process is central to what the prosecution needs to prove.

TAPPER: Jeremy, David Pecker said he tried to keep his agreement with Trump secret tests defining quote, I told him were going to try to help the campaign and to do that, I want to keep this as quiet as possible. That's what Pecker says he said. Then a prosecutor had Pecker confirm that the positive stories about Trump were of mutual benefit?

But stopping stories from being printed about Trump, catching and killing stories that would have sold on the newsstand, but he killed them like Karen McDougal only benefitted the campaign and did not benefit the "National Enquirer".

Explain why that clarification was necessary.

SALAND: Because who the winner out of all this, when we look at the intent and what the purpose and goal is, you have to see, well, why are we doing this? And that's a big question. The jury's going to ask and you're going to get some of that direct evidence. But it also doesn't take a leap of faith to say -- well, Michael Cohen's not benefiting. What is he necessarily getting directly?

David Pecker now clears up that other piece. We're not getting in any extra money. We're not getting extra oversight. A. Pardon me, more publicity for our articles. We're actually losing that publicity.

So who is the person who's winning here, who has the motive, who has the intent? That's Donald Trump. And with all of these bricks, as I mentioned before, it's putting it together and it's creating that foundation and doing it very, very well. It all points to one person, Donald Trump.

Cui bono, right? Who benefits?

Misty --

SALAND: Yeah, absolutely.

TAPPER: -- as Jeremy mentioned, Pecker says Michael Cohen suggested they switch to talk on Signal rather than on a landline or a regular cell phone. Explain why that's significant.

MARRIS: Yeah. Signal is notorious for being private messages. There's the types of messages that wouldn't necessarily be found if there were to be discovery.

And so, that -- the air of using Signal is something that could be a bit more nefarious. And that's why it's really a big part of the case that not only are these communications happening, they're having these discussions about the stories that are being planted and also being removed from the "Enquirer". But they're doing it in a secretive way. Now that leads to that old issue of intent, mens rea, why is it

secret? Well, it's secret because it's in furtherance of another crime.

TAPPER: And, Jeremy, David Pecker would even testified, to even test started today, quote, when we were preparing an article for the "National Enquirer", we'd communicate what we were doing at the direction of the article from Michael Cohen, we would also send him the PDFs, the visuals of the story before it was published, unquote. Pecker added Cohen had been former role in Trump's campaign and, quote, injected himself into the campaign, but often called Pecker and urged him to run negative stories about Trump's opponents. And we saw them against Cruz, against Rubio, against Hillary.

What do you make of Cohen's role here?

SALAND: Well, we also heard from a pardon me, from Pecker, that Michael Cohen said the boss is pleased or something to that effect, something going along those lines. He was the go-between. He was almost a de facto person for the campaign.

If you believe the prosecution story and as it comes out, that really manipulated the press via -- via the "Enquirer" to either as we said, kill the bad stories or promote the -- promote the stories that adversely impacting them, meaning something about, for example, Rubio. So he's a central piece here and it's helping lift up Michael Cohen before Michael Cohen testifies.

It's corroborating Michael Cohen before it has to be solely on Michael Cohen shoulder. And that's why again, Peckers, doing a terrific job for the prosecution.

TAPPER: And, Messy, there's also this moment where they're talking about the story that the doorman was alleging, which apparently was false. But he had a story and Pecker said he was just going to hold it. And then if it turned out to be true, he would run it after the election. Why is that significant?

MARRIS: This is one of the most significant points. It's all about tying this back. This -- these actions back specifically to the election, because the prosecution has to show the furtherance of another crime, presumably violation of election laws, campaign finance laws. They have to eliminate that defense of -- I would kill the story for any other reason just because I'm a high-profile person.

When it's directly tied to the election, planting of stories against political opponents is different than killing a story about your personal life. Clearly, that shows motivation related to the election and, Jake, that's why this story, if it's true, I'm going to run it after the election is so key because it means that that's the purpose of the catch and kill plan.

TAPPER: All right. Misty and Jeremy, stay with me.

Prosecutors spent a lot of time today questioning David Pecker about a 2015 meeting at Trump Tower. What Pecker says happened that day and its significance in this case.

Plus, the heated exchange between the judge and Trump's lawyers when questions come came up about insults that Trump posted on social media.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[16:19:07]

TAPPER: We're back with our law and justice lead.

And quote, you're losing all credibility with the court, unquote. That's what Judge Juan Merchan told Trump attorney Todd Blanche earlier today in their hearing. It got heated at times. The question was over whether Donald Trump repeatedly violated the gag order in the hush money case, Blanche tried to explain why his client posted insults of the jury, insults of witnesses, despite being told not to, having a gag order instructing him not to and the judge was not having it.

Prosecutors argue that Trump violated the order ten different times on Truth Social, and campaign posts between April 10th and April 17th. They want Trump fined $1,000 for each alleged violation.

Let's bring back our panel.

Jeremy, lets start with that exchange that that drew Judge Merchan's ire with Trump's legal team.

[16:20:00]

It's about this particular exchange about this Truth Social post from April 17, where Trump appears to quote something that Fox host Jesse Watters said on his show about attempts to stack the jury with liberals and liberal activists lying to the judge in order to get on the jury. No evidence of that. Merchan went after Todd Blanche, the attorney, because Trump's post was it not even a direct quote of what Watters had said.

And Merchan asked, your client manipulated what was said and put it in quotes. Am I right? Todd Blanche replied, I wouldn't use the word manipulation, Your Honor, but the rest of the quote was not part of the quote. Merchan's point is that Trump isn't merely re-posting the views of other people. He's writing out original thoughts, how damaging was this all do you think?

SALAND: Yeah. I mean, first of all, as a defense attorney and the prosecutor, sometimes you have to think on your feet. So that's obviously what Blanche was trying to do in part but it was really -- it's really right here as a lawyer, you do not want to hear the judge say you lack credibility. That's devastating.

And really when you look at this, so I'm looking down, he added words about liberal activists in order to get on the Trump jury. And that's something not accurate and it's really devastating, not to the Trump world. It is devastating for Trump inside the courtroom. But let's differentiate the two. You have the person who is innocent

until proven guilty inside, and you have the person outside who is folded all sorts of hot rhetoric that so damaging to the criminal justice system. And all he can do no matter what selfishly, he wants to dismantle the criminal justice system for his own gain.

And it puts Judge Merchan in a very difficult situation because no matter what he does arguably, Donald Trump wins and use this to his advantage because Donald Trump is not going into custody.

TAPPER: After the trial concluded for the day, Misty, Trump came out and railed against the gag order. Let's take a listen to part of that.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DONALD TRUMP, FORMER U.S. PRESIDENT & 2020 PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: It's totally unconstitutional. I'm not allowed to talk, but people are allowed to talk about me. So they can talk about me. They can say whatever they want, they can lie, but I'm not allowed to say it, you'd have to sit back and look at my conflicted judge that's ordered to have a gag order.

I don't think anybody has ever seen anything like this.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

TAPPER: So, you know, I don't think you need to be told this, but plenty of defendants get put under gag order in criminal trials. And things he said there were not accurate. He's allowed to -- he's allowed to talk about the district attorneys, allowed to talk about the judge. He's allowed to talk about the case.

He's just not allowed to personally insult witnesses or jurors, or members of the family of the district attorney or the judge, or their staffs.

Trump must know the facts here. Do you think his attorneys have just given up on trying to talk to him about this?

MARRIS: Oh my gosh, as a defense lawyer, you're definitely speaking to the client every single day. Please be careful. Public statements, anything you'd say out there can come back to bite you.

But, look, the judge was very specific and making a narrowly tailored gag order and that was to toe the line to say that, yeah, you can criticize the process. You can criticize me. You can criticize the D.A., but what you can't do, is go after jurors and witnesses, and that's really a tenet of the criminal justice system that those individuals need to be protected. And that's an order for the whole process and the trial to be fair.

So I think that his defense lawyers they're probably giving him advice about what to say. They're probably telling him not to go too far. Will he listen? Well, that remains to be seen and I think we've definitely seen him crossing the line with some of the comments that he's made. And I agree with Jeremy. You don't want the judge saying to you as a lawyer that you're losing credibility with the court. That's not a great thing to hear.

And, Jeremy, obviously, Michael Cohen is out there going after Trump, too, and several of the alleged violence relations involve posts where Trump is going after Michael Cohen, either directly or indirectly.

One of the posts was a comment Trump made about different posts from Michael Avenatti, which went after Michael Cohen and Stormy Daniels, and Trump referred to the witnesses as sleazebags. Trump also repeatedly shared headlines that referred to Cohen as a serial perjurer. And to be fair, Michael Cohen did concede that he misrepresented the facts. He lied before Congress on Trump's behalf we should note, and he served prison time in part because of that perjury.

Do you see the posts going after Michael Cohen as violating the gag order and do you think that gag order is fair?

SALAND: I'll start in reverse here, and I think the gag order is fair and it should be sort of not just for Trump, although it's not an issue for the prosecution, but it should be across the board. That case should be tried within the four corners of 100 Center Street, not in the street, but in that building. And that's what needs to be done.

So yes, I believe it's fair. And is it crossing the line? I believe it is. It is crossing the line because we know how Donald Trump uses this to manipulate people. And even if it's not his intention, it's definitely recklessly dangerous because it exposes people to the reaction to those who really consume what he says and then react to it in the very sometimes violent or aggressive, or agitating way.

[16:25:07]

It's just unhealthy for the jury, especially the jury, when you bring them in. But even from Michael Cohen, and Michael Cohen, absolutely, has problems as a witness. That's why David Pecker sort of sort of bolstering him up. But that doesn't give Donald Trump the right to do what he is doing with that gag order, fight it out in the courtroom. Let your attorneys do their job.

TAPPER: Misty, were you surprised, Judge Merchan hasn't rendered an immediate decision on the gag order violations yet?

MARRIS: I wasn't surprised because he's got to go through each individual instance, the prosecution is alleging and make a determination about whether or not that violates at an also think about what's the penalty going to be to send a message but not go too far. So I think were having decision was what I would've expected.

TAPPER: All right. Misty Marris, Jeremy Saland, thank you to both you.

Pecker described the tactics of, quote, checkbook journalism and catch and kill. Just how often that's used and why it's so specific to this case. That's next. (COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[16:30:21]

TAPPER: And we're back with the law and justice lead.

Zeroing in on that 25-minute meeting at Trump tower, detailed and testimony today by former tabloid magnate David Pecker. The meeting was an August 2015, about two months after Trump came down that golden escalator at Trump Tower, launching his 2016 presidential campaign.

Now, Pecker testified today that his meeting was with Trump and with Trump's lawyer, Michael Cohen. He said, Hope Hicks came in and out of the room at the time.

And today, Pecker testified Trump and Michael Cohen asked him, quote, what his magazines could do to help the campaign, magazines such as the "National Enquirer".

Pecker recalled saying he'd, quote, run or publish positive stories about Mr. Trump and published negative stories about his opponents, unquote, and if he heard of women's selling stories about Mr. Trump who he called an eligible bachelor, although he was married, Pecker said that he would notify Michael Cohen and he'd have the stories, in other magazines.

Pecker also testified, quote, in a presidential campaign, I was the person that thought that there would be a lot of women who would come out to try to sell their stories because Mr. Trump was well-known, is the most eligible bachelor and dated the most beautiful women, unquote.

Pecker also said if he heard women selling stories. He'd notified Cohen. He'd had the stories killed. He said, I think it was a mutual benefit. It would help his campaign and it would also help me, unquote.

The tactic discussed in that meeting, it's called catch and kill. Buy somebody by the rights to a story, and instead of running it, kill it. It's not illegal. It's not illegal at all. The practice of buying silence to squash an unfavorable story. But it did become central to the health of former President Trump's 2016 campaign.

For example, just days before voters at the streets, "The Wall Street Journal" reported that "Enquirer" parent company, American Media Incorporated run by David Pecker, paid 1998 playmate of the year Karen McDougal, $150,000 for the rights to her story.

As David Pecker put it today, her story about a, quote, romantic relationship with the Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump.

And before Karen McDougal, David Pecker acknowledged and other catch and kill story involving now disproven claim, a false claim by a doorman who was claiming that Trump had fathered a child with a woman outside his marriage, that doorman was paid $30,000. Pecker testified today he agreed to by the story which Cohen replied, the boss will be very pleased. It's a story that Pecker are today said was 1,000 percent false.

All this is prosecutors are working their way toward the Stormy Daniels allegation at the center of the case.

Joining us now to discuss, Kim Masters, the editor at large at "The Hollywood Reporter".

Kim, thanks for joining us.

So you've been reporting on powerful people and their scandals and their attempts to hide and suppress those scandals for decades. What was your reaction watching Pecker describe his, quote, mutually beneficial relationship, unquote, with a presidential candidate.

KIM MASTERS, EDITOR-AT-LARGE, THE HOLLYWOOD REPORTER: It was really quite nauseating, I would say, as you as you mentioned, this is legal. And so, ridiculous lies are published to help a candidate, that is not journalism. But they've been doing it for years. I mean, this is something that Arnold Schwarzenegger availed himself of when he was running for governor. And nothing stops them.

TAPPER: Pecker called the practice of catch and kill, quote, checkbook journalism. What do you make of that characterization?

MASTERS: Well, it is what he's saying. You pay someone for their to silence them. Now, in my world of legitimate journalism, people don't offer money like that generally. What they do and my stories that have been career threatening to a number of people in this industry and the entertainment world, they threatened to sue you and they get a lawyer to write a real Helen Brimstone letter that is outrageous, it's false, it's this, it's that.

Now I'm just going to knock wood when I say we have always published, when we've received those letters. And so far, no one has as sued us.

TAPPER: Packer testified, quote, I told him, Trump, we're going to try to help the campaign and to do that, I want to keep this as quiet as possible, unquote.

Bring us behind the scenes of how you imagine Pecker may have run this operation to help Trump and also keep it secret. He obviously said that there was no paper. It was a gentleman's agreement.

MASTERS: Yeah. Such great gentlemen.

It's just tawdry stuff. I mean, he had to separate email accounts then at some point, I think Michael Cohen says, let's go to Signal, which is an encrypted app dive certainly used to communicate with sources and delicate situations. And the whole thing is just -- it's like a parade of sleaze, what's being revealed here.

[16:35:21]

But these people have made a lot of money and obviously, I don't know that McDougal expected her whatever she was -- she was going to write a column and I think she really thought that was going to happen. But she did sit on that story.

And then, of course, we get this Stormy Daniels and we know what happened there, and what -- which will be the subject of testimony in the coming days.

TAPPER: Now, you have direct experience with another powerful person who tried to squash years of allegations against him, Harvey Weinstein, and you've said that you think both Trump and Weinstein fundamentally believed that people can be bought. Tell us more.

MASTERS: Well, you know, Harvey managed to silence a lot of people of his victims. He terrified them. He got them to sign non-disclosure agreements and he paid them what really is in the big world, a paltry amount of money certainly in Hollywood.

But Harvey did -- you know, in my case, when I was pursuing that story over the course of 20-plus years, just intermittently trying to see if there was a way in, he knew that he had it all sewn up and he was very arrogant and he felt that he had said to me in plain language, they'll never get me. That changed when his power started to diminish.

But as that emerged, you know, Harvey, suddenly, I was not the one doing the story at that time. It was "The New York Times", and Ronan Farrow for "The New Yorker". But I first, I had a fake reporter call me to talk about Hollywood, then it turned out later that that was a Harvey emissary to see what was on my mind since he knew that I knew.

And then he got in touch with me and he said he wanted to give me a book offer and I was a little, like why would he do that? I don't even think the Weinstein Company is really publishing books but he was like, it's perfect for you. It's great.

To my regret, somewhat, I cut him off before he could offer me a number because I really would like to know how much does he think my silence is worth.

TAPPER: Yeah.

MASTERS: But in the aftermath, I realized what he wanted to stop me from doing is to go on television literally around the world, which I did Australia, Asia, Europe talking about what I knew about Harvey Weinstein.

And that was -- if he had gotten me to sign up for some book deal, I would've been conflicted and I wouldn't have been able to do that. So that was the play and obviously it didn't work.

TAPPER: Kim Masters, thanks so much. Really appreciate your time and insights.

Then there's this -- spin cycle in the case. Donald Trump himself, how the American public and voters might be taking this all. We'll get to that next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[16:42:12]

TAPPER: We're back with our law and justice lead and what could we describe as a bumpy day in court for Donald Trump when it comes to the hush money cover up trial.

First, Judge Juan Merchan admonished Trump's main lawyer, Todd Blanche, during a hearing over whether Trump has violated the gag order in this case. Judge Merchan telling Blanche, quote, you're losing all credibility with the court, unquote.

And then tabloid magnate David Pecker took the stand for a second day of testimony and he spoke about how as a tabloid publisher, he would buy stories that were unflattering to Trump and then he would kill them to make sure they didn't become public. That was the goal.

Let's bring in CNN's John King and Jamie Gangel.

Jamie, was today a bad day for Donald Trump?

JAMIE GANGEL, CNN SPECIAL CORRESPONDENT: He -- look, I can't read his mind, but he looked pretty miserable sitting up there. David Pecker is a friend of his.

TAPPER: Yeah.

GANGEL: And this is not Michael Cohen. In fact, he's not a friend. He's a good friend, someone who helped him along the way you really have to wonder what the jurors were thinking because so much of the prosecutions campaign is this notion that this happened in service of winning the election. And a lot of what we heard from David Pecker today was a history of this, the context. This wasn't the first time.

And there were stories we saw about going after Marco Rubio, going after Ted Cruz. So you see the history of Trump using this relationship --

TAPPER: Yeah.

GANGEL: -- to get rid of opponents.

TAPPER: Yeah. And John, I mean, these guys have been buddies since the '80s, came up together, you know, wealthy guys in New York symbiotic relationship. Trump sold magazines and newspapers. And David Pecker provided Trump with very flattering headlines what do you make of today?

JOHN KING, CNN CHIEF NATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Look, any day you're sitting at the table and you are the defendant at a criminal trial is not a good day, whether your name is Donald Trump or John Q. Public. It's a bad day to be there.

But to the point you're making here, just like in the January 6 testimony, one of the things Trump says out on the road and his rallies to his supporters and his emails and his many, many fundraising appeals is that they're out to get me. Joe Biden's out to get me. Democrats are out to get me. Woke prosecutors are out to get me.

And what happens when you actually have hearings, January 6 hearings or now a criminal trial, people who were Velcroed pretty close to Donald Trump are the ones giving the damage testimony. It's friends of his, people he trusted, people who helped him, people who said they wanted to help him, they wanted to help in this case, help get them elected president because David Pecker thought would be beneficial to him.

The big question is, does it break through? How is it covered in the conservative echo space where most Trumps supporters get their news?

[16:45:03]

That's the challenge going forward. Does it break through in the election campaign? But from a legal standpoint, it's just kind of slimy, right? It's just --

TAPPER: And, John, today was only day two of testimony from David Pecker. We're going to have more, but we learned about this mutually beneficial relationship between Trump and supermarket tabloid.

Michael Cohen's contact with Trump -- Trump increasing -- I mean, not Michael Cohen. Michael Cohen's contact with David Pecker and David Pecker is contact with Donald Trump increasing once Trump again running for president. Trump was cautious and frugal with money Pecker said, so much so that he personally reviewed invoices and signs checks. He was meticulous, he said.

Trump and Cohen and Pecker had this in-person August 2015 meeting where they agreed that Pecker would be the eyes and ear's of Trump's 2016 campaign. Pecker would notify Cohen if women selling negative stories about Trump emerged with Pecker -- with Pecker anticipated would happen. Cohen would then try to find a way to kill the story.

A lot of damaging testimony from this friend of his.

KING: But both politically and legally. Politically, again, if this breakthrough out there, you know, the competition, the election is going to be decided by Nikki Haley voters, for example, or suburban swing voters, for example, and just Trump's relationship with a tabloid, buying these kind of stories. That's not going to sell very well with them. So that'll be part of the competition, in the suburbs.

Legally, a couple of very important points there. Number one, Trump was hands-on with the money. Trump often says if these payments are made, somebody was taking care of it. I didn't know about it, I didn't know about the specifics anyway.

His friends saying he was hands out with the money. It's important. Plus the Trump defense team is going to savage Michael Cohen and his credibility through Mr. Pecker today, prosecution did get this on the record. How important Michael Cohen was, how trusted he was by Donald Trump back in the day.

So they will savage him saying he's lost his credibility. But through Pecker, the prosecution did a good job making sure the jury knows. Michael Cohen and Donald Trump, they were like this when all this was playing out.

TAPPER: All right. Jamie Gangel and John King, and for those listening on Sirius XM, John King had his hands together, like they were praying -- like he was praying.

New aerial view shows that growing encampment in Columbia University, ahead. A new warning after some protests have turned intense and antisemitic at times for Jewish students on campus. Stay with us.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[16:51:07]

TAPPER: In our national lead, protests against Israel are now in their seventh day at New York's Columbia University. The encampment clearly visible from helicopters above. And while these demonstrations are mostly peaceful, mostly inside the campus, there has been some menacing antisemitic chants spewed by protesters and groups, mostly outside the campus.

Here's an example. Take a listen a listen.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

PROTESTERS: Al-Qassam you make us proud, kill another soldier now.

Al-Qassam you make us proud, take another settler out!

We say justice, you say how? Burn Tel Aviv to the ground!

Hamas we love you. We support your rockets too!

(END VIDEO CLIP)

TAPPER: So, praise for Hamas, a terrorist group. Praise for Al-Qassam, which is the military arm of the terrorist group Hamas, saying they love Hamas, saying that they want Tel-Aviv to be burned to the ground, saying they want Israeli soldiers and Israeli settlers to be murdered.

It's antisemitism. That's what that is, full stop.

Let's go to CNN's Shimon Prokupecz, who is at a pro-Palestinian rally at Columbia University right now.

Shimon, when talking with protesters, the ones that claim to be peaceful, do any of them, when you ask -- if you ask, deny what happened on October 7th, the Hamas attack on Israel today, support what happened on October 7? What supporters of it called the al-Aqsa flood?

SHIMON PROKUPECZ, CNN SENIOR CRIME AND JUSTICE CORRESPONDENT: Yeah. So it's interesting, Jake, because when you do try to talk to them about Hamas, so when you try to talk about antisemitism or the events of October 7, many of them will try to get back to what their here about. And that's their pro-Palestine views. And the fact that they want the college to divest from their support of Israel.

But it's not entirely clear what that means. And I think that's part of the frustration certainly for the university and trying to negotiate with them to bring some kind of resolution to this, because it just does not seem that this is coming to an end at any point.

We're outside the university and on almost on a daily basis, we'll see a small number of people gather outside the university chanting their support for Palestine, saying -- calling for a ceasefire and they usually try to stand outside the gates of the college, close as to where the encampment of those really hundreds of students now.

Today, interestingly enough, the university came out and said that what the students on the inside are doing in that encampment is against regulations. So now the question is, well, what will the university do? They're saying this is not allowed, but yet there still allowing it to continue.

The last time they came out and said this, Jake, they had the NYPD come in and clear out the entire encampment. We'll see if that happens again.

TAPPER: Yeah. I believe they need that space where the encampment is, they believe they need that space for graduation, which is coming up.

Shimon, at Columbia, things appear to be, you know, as calm as protests can be but tell us about what happened downtown at NYU last night, because there were more than 130 arrests.

PROKUPECZ: Yeah, it was significant, Jake, because they're also there was an encampment. The school warned the students that they needed to move. They've brought tents.

And again, what we've seen here, they had their tents out there at NYU with something very concerning happened.

[16:55:00]

This college there, NYU said that things just got out of control. They were starting to see acts of antisemitism, which really concerned them. And that the chanting just became too aggressive. And also that outside factions, people that do not belong to the college started coming on to camp grounds.

And so, they asked the NYPD to move in and clear out the encampment. The other thing there, Jake, jay quickly that happened was that there were faculty members the NYPD says that locked arms to try and prevent them from arresting the student that is certainly an escalation that we have not seen.

So we'll see how things develop here tonight, here at NYU, Jake.

TAPPER: Shimon Prokupecz at Columbia University in New York, thanks so much.

The details coming out in the hush money case can be non-stop when court is in session and difficult for the American people who are living their lives to keep up. Why today's testimony specifically was so significant. That's ahead.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

TAPPER: Welcome to THE LEAD. I'm Jake Tapper.