Return to Transcripts main page
The Lead with Jake Tapper
Testimony Ends For The Day In Trump Hush Money Trial; Trump Speaks After Third Day Of Testimony In Hush Money Trial. Aired 4-5p ET
Aired April 25, 2024 - 16:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
[16:00:16]
ANNOUNCER: This is CNN breaking news.
JAKE TAPPER, CNN HOST: Hello, and welcome to THE LEAD. I'm Jake Tapper.
Donald Trump's criminal hush money cover up trial is underway in Manhattan right now. Trump's defense team is now cross-examining the prosecution's first witness, former tabloid executive David Pecker. This is Pecker's third day on the stand and today for the very first time, he described the deal that he helped broker with adult film star and director Stormy Daniels, a deal that is at the center of this case. The prosecution has used Pecker to set the scene for the jury, introducing them to keep players in the case, how they all fit together in the story right now.
The defense tactic in its early questioning is part of a strategy -- the strategy to argue the David Pecker's work helping Trump during the 2016 election was nothing new, nothing unusual. Also notably today, Judge Juan Merchan so far still has declined to issue a ruling from Tuesday's hearing on whether Trump has violated his gag order, despite the prosecution arguing that this morning that Trump continues to violate this order against disparaging members of the jury and the witnesses, of course, this is four times over the last three days, the prosecution says.
Let's discuss with our panel.
And let me start with you, David Chalian, because the trial is going on right now. David Pecker shrugging, says he's testifying to the best of his knowledge to be truthful because Emil Bove, Trump's lawyer, is saying what I'm getting at is these things happened a long time ago, even when you're doing your best, it's hard to remember things. He's saying like maybe you don't remember this all that well. This is years and years ago. Pecker's in his 70s, et cetera. Trump has his arms folded across his body watching Pecker answer his attorney's questions.
DAVID CHALIAN, CNN POLITICAL DIRECTOR: Specifically, he was poking holes in the memory of where Trump was in August 2015 and you remember that's that consequential meeting between Pecker and Cohen and Trump setting up the whole scheme and the defense here is clearly trying to say, you're not quite remembering if Trump was in town or not in town. Just trying to bring in this cloud of suspicion around what he presented jury in the prosecutions time.
TAPPER: And Pecker said earlier when presented with the fact that Stormy Daniels had this story out there, this adult film star in directors alleging that she had had an encounter with Mr. Trump.
Pecker testified, quote, I said, I don't want the "National Enquirer" to be associated with porn star. He added that Walmart was the main distributor of the magazine and it would be very bad for AMI, the publishing company that produces the "National Enquirer". Pecker also said, if anyone was going to buy it in terms of buying the story, I thought Michael Cohen and Donald Trump should buy it.
The significance of that do you think? The idea that Pecker is saying that he was reluctant to get involved in the Stormy Daniels case when we know at the end of the day, he didn't actually get involved. It was Michael Cohen who got involved.
ANKUSH KHARDORI, SENIOR WRITER, POLITICO MAGAZINE: Right. So I mean, look, I guess the argument to be made is that that this was unusual, right? It wasn't standard fare for him to be necessarily -- wasn't consistent with his business objectives to be engaged --
TAPPER: To kill stories.
KHARDORI: -- to kill stories, get it for Trump, right? And then fact killing this particular story, acquiring the story, wouldn't have made any, make much business sense for him.
So they're trying to sort of bill this narrative around him as sort of working exclusive for Trump and exclusively for the purposes of the election, right? One of the things he testified about, I believe on direct earlier today was he said that in a meeting with Trump, there was no reference to Trumps family, right? No reference to Trumps family in that meeting.
TAPPER: So, he wasn't doing this to -- he wasn't wanting to suppress the Stormy Daniels, or the Karen McDougal story on behalf of his wife, protecting his wife or his kids. It was just about his campaign.
KHARDORI: That -- that is what the D.A.'s office is going to be saying. And, you know, Trump has suggested or as lawyers have suggested that it may have been had something to do with his family, but this is now a trial or evidence has to be adduced, and I don't know who is going to put that into evidence unless its Donald Trump himself and he's not credible.
TAPPER: So the prosecutor, right now, this is Assistant District Attorney Steinglass is objecting to Trumps attorney and Mr. Bove characterizing David Pecker's meetings with the D.A.'s office as a lot because Pecker's suggested something like that. The judge sustained the objection.
What's -- what's the point of that objection that you see the idea that they cooked the story up with the prosecutor?
TOM DUPREE, FORMER PRINCIPAL DEPUTY ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL: Yeah. Look, this is kind of textbook defense lawyer 101. One of the things that defense is going to try to show is that Pecker and probably the other witnesses really did sit down with the prosecutors and laid out the narrative and I don't want to say it's a concocted story, but the idea is that they're basically spelling out the story that the prosecutors want them to tell. I think what we've seen so far here, Jake, today in the early stages of the cross-examination, is that the Trump defense team is going to follow a strategy of really trying to reframe the whole significance of Pecker's testimony.
[16:05:05]
The prosecutors want to educate the jury on the catch and kill a process and say, this is how Trump and people he worked with typically would try to suppress these types of stories. What the defense is going to be trying to show today through the cross-examination is that this was done all the time. They did it for all sorts of other celebrities, all sorts of other politicians. So don't draw any conclusions that this was a special deal to protect Donald Trump.
TAPPER: So David Pecker just said he remembers meeting with prosecutors five to six times during the summer of 2018.
Jim Schultz, in your experience, does that work -- the idea of trying to depict a witness that has damaging testimony as having been coached or nudged in a certain way by prosecutors? Does that work with jurors?
JIM SCHULTZ, FORMER TRUMP WHITE HOUSE LAWYER: Well, they're going to try to show that he was incentivized, right? That he's -- he's now a witness. He was not a subject the investigation or involved in it and had immunity and all the other things that come along with that and I think they're also trying to show look that this is -- they keep using the word standard operating procedure --
TAPPER: For the "National Enquirer".
SCHULTZ: In the questioning. And I think that's the key to this to say, look, they've done this all the time. They're taking the dirty secrets of that business, saying they leveraged of other celebrities, right? That's the key. That they've leveraged other celebrities, right, that's the key, that they leveraged other celebrities, that they do this all the time and they keep using the word "standard operating procedure" and attacking it from that angle that this is a dirty business, that's what they're going to try and show that this is a dirty business and that when they got caught in it, they went to the prosecutors and just follow the prosecutors narrative.
TAPPER: So the jury right now, were told inside because they're not allow cameras in the courtroom, so were trying to bring you a window through narrative from our reporters in the room. The jurors are closely watching Trump's attorney, Mr. Bove, and the witness, Mr. Packer, some jurors seated closer to the gallery or occasionally looking out into the gallery at the reporters, Jamie Gangel.
JAMIE GANGEL, CNN SPECIAL CORRESPONDENT: Again, just to follow up on Jim said, the reality is David Pecker is getting immunity and that's going to come out as an incentive. I would say just going back to direct today, I was looking through all of our slack channel for every that was said, that's -- that's what were putting on TV. The number of times David Pecker was asked and answered that this had to do with the campaign. If you just go through the transcript --
TAPPER: Quite a bit, right?
GANGEL: -- over and over and over again. He says, if he didn't want to do it because it would embarrass Mr. Trump or embarrass or hurt the campaign -- the campaign, the campaign, the campaign.
TAPPER: Which is different I guess, than saying yes, we did this with I'm just going to name a dead actor, so I don't get in trouble. Tyrone Power, right?
GANGEL: OK.
TAPPER: We hit -- we hit all of that. Tyrone Power's dirt just to help him because we had a good relationship with him. This is different because it's helping get somebody elected theoretically.
GANGEL: And clearly the prosecution is underscoring this over and over. They want to make the case.
Two other things, one is that David Pecker and they did this yesterday, they're doing it today. They're making the connection that David Pecker and Donald Trump were friends David Pecker, one point says --
TAPPER: The defense attorneys are making the argument.
GANGEL: Yes. No, no, no, no.
TAPPER: The prosecution, okay.
GANGEL: The prosecutors because they wanted to say David Pecker wouldn't be doing this to hurt Donald Trump. He liked it and he said at one point, I felt that Donald Trump was my mentor. He helped me throughout my career. I still consider them close even though we haven't spoken. I still consider him a friend.
TAPPER: So Trump's attorney or the defense attorney, Emil Bove, is asking you a series of questions since right now, if David Pecker, the witness, about how prosecutors in fact prepared Pecker to give, quote, consistent testimony every time he's testified.
David Chatterley and some very interesting testimony not long ago this afternoon, where David Pecker recalled a phone conversation. He had with Trump's White House team at the time. According to Mr. Packer, Hope Hicks, and Sarah Huckabee Sanders, Sarah was the communications director or the press secretary, and Hope Hicks was a special assistant to the president.
He talked -- Pecker says with Hicks and Sanders about whether Karen McDougal's contract should be extended. So just to remind people, Karen McDougal is 1998 playmate of the year, who alleged she had a long term affair and part of the catch and kill was to give her $150,000, David Pecker did, to have her not tell her story publicly.
It was not a script Pecker said, going on to confirm he wasn't surprised by any questions from the prosecutor. That's about the separate issue about whether or not the defense or the rather the prosecution has coached him.
In any case, Karen McDougal had this contract. She was -- she got $150,000. They bought the rights to her story, including her alleged affair with Donald Trump, and then David Pecker calls the White House. And so should we -- should we extend her contract? Pecker said both of them, Hope Hicks and Sarah Sanders, said that they thought it was a good idea.
[16:10:05]
Now, those are taxpayer-funded employees of ours, of the White House at the time giving recommendation that Karen McDougal's contracts should be extended. That's -- that's pretty interesting.
CHALIAN: I don't think either of them were thinking also about Trumps family or embarrassment of that voice inside the White House about what not wanting more stories to come out here. You know, hearing Pecker's telling of how Donald Trump checked in on Karen McDougal with him. I thought was really interesting today.
I mean, starting with the initial before the deal was done, before he signed AMI, sign the deal with McDougal. But when it was in the works, apparently there was a phone call between in Pecker and Trump. Pecker's out, New Jersey, get let me interrupt you.
TAPPER: I'm going to bring up because I got a graphic and then I'm going to come right back to you. Okay. So this has to do with it.
When I got on the phone, this is David Pecker talking, when I got on the phone, Mr. Trump said to me, I spoke -- I spoke to Michael Cohen. Karen is a nice girl, by the way, just to interrupt here. David Pecker confirming than in 2015 and 2016, Michael Cohen was always clear that he was Trump's personal attorney. He was not working for the campaign. We'll see how significant that is.
Anyway, so Pecker says Trump gets on the phone with them, says I spoke to Michael, Karen's a nice girl, Pecker testifies. I believe that when Mr. Trump said that she was a nice girl, I believe that he knew who she was. The prosecutor asked Pecker why he told Trump they should by the story, to suppress it.
Pecker says, I believe the story was true. Pecker recalls Cohen told him about paying for the story, saying the boss will take care of it, Pecker clarifies the boss. Was Donald Trump just now in court, Trumps attorney asked Pecker to confirm his prior testimony that Cohen was always angling for something for himself.
But in any case, that's what you were talking about, the conversation --
CHALIAN: That comes -- I didn't know you had the graphic. I'm glad you did, but that conversation Donald Trump saying she's a nice girl. Now fast-forward and now you're in the "thank you" dinner at the White House and we learn again that Donald Trump is checking in on how Karen's doing.
So when you see Donald Trump publicly and say things like, I don't even know who this person is this, I mean, this clearly, somebody that he actually had on his mind and I thought Pecker revealing that was quite informative.
GANGEL: Could I -- could I just add one thing? I can hear Donald Trump saying these words because I've actually heard him say these words about somebody else. This is the way he speaks. I was interviewing him at the time he was married to Marla Maples and we were waiting for her to come and he said, she's a nice girl. She shows up on time.
TAPPER: About Marla Maples?
GANGEL: Yes. It's just the way he speaks. When -- when I heard those words, it just jumped out at me.
TAPPER: Interesting. We -- it is not unheard of for courts to throw out a conviction. In fact, we just happened in New York today with Harvey Weinstein. I'm not comparing these cases, but it just happened today. Where they -- a higher court ruled that evidence should not have been introduced in a case against Harvey Weinstein.
Now he's still in prison for stuff he did in Los Angeles, et cetera, they might retry the case, but I wonder, Jim, if you think introducing this Karen McDougal information and the other catch and kill story information could later be used to call into question this, this case.
SCHULTZ: It's that balancing tests between what is probative and what is prejudicial, right? And those are things that the appellate courts are going to look at. I think there are going to be a lot of appellate issues in this case, including the kind of underlying crimes that make it a felony. I think this case is going to have a -- there's a lot of fodder for appeals on this case. It's going to go for some time after -- afterwards if there's a conviction.
TAPPER: So, Trump's attorney just ask Pecker whether he told agents and that's FBI agents at a July 2018 interview that Hope Hicks had been at that important meeting in August 2015 at Trump Tower, where supposedly this scheme has been hatched. The prosecutor objects to Trump attorney asking that question, Merchan, sustained -- sustains the objection.
Why would Merchan -- why would the prosecutor object? And why would Merchan sustain the objection?
KHARDORI: Yeah. I'm not quite sure.
TAPPER: Do you have an idea?
DUPREE: Well, I mean, my guess is that what they're trying to do, the defense team is trying to suggest that the political and the personal were kind of kept segregated. The prosecutors are trying to show that in Trump-world everything was all blended together. And so, I think that that's what that line of questioning was aimed to get at.
But I think what the judge did here is actually very interesting. In that to the point about not creating a pellet issues the judge is paying attention, listening to the questioning, and making these on the spot judgment calls about questions that are permissible and questions that are impermissible, precisely to ensure that you don't have that kind of Harvey Weinstein problem where the judge allows the prosecutors or the defense to start opening doors that shouldn't be opened before the jury.
KHARDORI: Yeah. I mean, the thing that's catching my eye here is that anytime you have a defense lawyer asking a cooperating witness, did you tell the agents X, Y, or Z, it usually suggest that there may have been some omission during the debriefing process and that maybe that fact didn't come out during some --
[16:15:12]
TAPPER: It's exactly right. Trump's attorneys, Trump's attorney trying to get back or to confirm that he did not mention him so when he first told the story, Trump we're told is sitting there with his arms crossed, he and his other defense attorney, Todd Blanche, leaning over whispering to each other.
Standby one and all, much more to discuss the breaking new Trumps defense team is cross-examining former tabloid magnate David Pecker. You see the updates coming in on the side of your screen. We'll see how much ground is covered in these final minutes of the trial today, we're going to take a quick break. We'll be right back.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
TAPPER: And we're back with our breaking news. Day three of testimony continues in the Donald Trump hush money to cover up trial. Former tabloid executive, David Pecker is on the stand. He's being cross- examined by Trump's defense team.
Let's bring back our panel, discuss what's happening in court right this minute because Pecker is confirming as the defense attorney has been pressing him to do, that Emil Bove that he did not mention Hope Hicks being at that August 2015 Trump tower meeting in his initial 2018 government interview.
[16:20:06]
Just to bring you up to speed, if you don't know, in August 2015, that is when Donald Trump and Michael Cohen, his attorney at the time, and David Pecker, the publisher of the national enquirer, sat down according to Pecker and Cohen and came up with this meeting and this idea where the "National Enquirer" would help Trump, that's according to the testimony of two of these individuals.
What is the significance, Jim, do you think of the fact? That the defense attorneys have now gotten David Pecker to agree that he didn't mention Trumps campaign aide and White House aide, Hope Hicks being at that original August 20, 2015 meeting, when he first recounted this to prosecutors.
SCHULTZ: Two reasons. One, perhaps to impeach his credibility, right to take a shot on just credibility and maybe his memory, right? Two, there could be a reason to Hope Hicks being part of other meetings going forward. This was the course of conduct having are in it as they got further into the campaign, it might be, it might have been back in 2015, they were doing it, and then perhaps she was part of other meetings that happened further down the road and they're trying to establish that she was part of that as part of a course -- of course of conduct for those types of issues.
Attorneys are at the bench right now because the prosecution asked to approach over an objection to Emil Bove, the defense attorney, his series of questions about Pecker's past testimony. So this is again, this is the prosecution objecting to what Jim was just explaining the defense attorney is trying to do, trying to undermine David Pecker in some way, perhaps.
DUPREE: Yeah. I think what's going on here is that the defense is trying to show that Pecker's story has evolved a classic defense cross-examination technique is to confront the witness with the story as they first told it when approached by the government from it and said, here's the story you told then today in this courtroom, you're telling a different story suggesting its changed, maybe the government was coaching and maybe they were planting nuggets, maybe they wanted to frame the case in a different way as new details begin to emerge.
So it looks like what's going on here, Jake, is the prosecutors are getting wise to this and they're going to try to shut down this line of questioning and hopefully get the defense to move on to a different topic with this witness.
So Hope Hicks we're told will possibly testify in this case, a former campaign aide former White House aide close to President Trump and the Trump family, and the Trump team.
What is the purpose? Do you think of all? This question about whether or not she was at the 2015 meeting, is it to establish that this was in fact a campaign purposed meeting?
KHARDORI: Yes.
TAPPER: Yeah.
KHARDORI: Yes. I don't think she was there to help out Donald Trumps family.
TAPPER: Yeah, because -- well, I mean, I'm sure she --
KHARDORI: Maybe, I mean, I guess you shouldn't be so --
TAPPER: She is -- I'm sure she has relationships with Ivanka and Melania, I mean --
KHARDORI: But at that time -- but at the time --
TAPPER: She used to work for Ivanka.
KHARDORI: But at the time, yeah --
TAPPER: Guys, we should note, Judge Merchan has dismissed the jury for the day.
KHARDORI: I was just going to say, but at that time, were talking about August 25th. We all know the political calendar and what is happening at that point in time in terms of gearing up for presidential --
TAPPER: Right. Trump has just announced lets dish presidential campaign the month before the month or two before.
SCHULTZ: But it could also go to the fact that they're trying to look at this and say, look, this was all about also Donald Trumps brand, right? That this is something he's been a celebrity forever long before he was he was a candidate for president. That there's this course of conduct that they are going to, that there were constantly working to try to protect the brand, if you will, and part of that is protect the family to families. All part of the brand that can be part of their defense theory at the end of the day, that this is -- that this is all commonplace because they're constantly protecting Trumps brand, right?
GANGEL: Can I just say Trumps brand was also Marla Maples that he left. I mean, it's not as if he had not been in the tabloids.
TAPPER: You have to explain who Marla Maples is. Not everybody out there watches when watching knows who Marla Maples. I know who Marla Maples is. Best ex of her life, she supposedly said. Although threes reason to question that -- anyway, go ahead.
GANGEL: You remembered that. I didn't remember that what number is she was wife number two. And that she was having an affair with Donald Trump while he was still married to Ivana Trump, his wife number one. And it was all over the tabloids.
TAPPER: So, David Chalian, the jury has left the courtroom, but Jamie brings up an interesting idea, which is the idea -- you know, first of all, for any presidential candidate or any president separating campaign from official government business is always difficult, right? And you know, Barack Obama candidate Barack Obama president, it's the same person.
Donald Trump had 30 versions of that, right? You have Donald Trump running for office, Donald Trump the game show host, Donald Trump, the real estate tycoon, Donald Trump, the steak manufacturer, and on and on and on.
So, the Trump brand is like a legitimately -- legitimate subject for a defense.
[16:25:01] CHALIAN: It is and the Trump brand was totally part and parcel of the campaign in that way. There's no doubt about that. That's why he was immediately recognizable to the American public and able to be a player in this campaign.
But remember, this is candidate Trump, prior to president. So like when you're running a presidential campaign, campaign, as you know, there's almost nothing you were doing that is not in the context of that presidential campaign.
TAPPER: Yeah, John Edwards.
CNN's Kara Scannell is in New York. She's been following every detail from outside the courthouse.
Kara, significant day in court as the judges now dismissing the jury, those poor jurors get to go poem and have some time to themselves. Get us up to speed on where the defense team left matters in its cross- examination of this first witness, David Pecker.
KARA SCANNELL, CNN CORRESPONDENT: So the defense has only been going at David Pecker for less than an hour, but they're beginning to focus on two main themes here, trying to get at these hush deals, and that magazines and politicians often work together asking David Pecker if that was standard operating procedure, and he said that it was.
He also said that he'd been warning Trump for 17 years about any negative stories, and that this did not just begin in 2015. So, one main focus of the cross-examination is to try to tell the jury that some of this was normal. It's not necessarily illegal he goal and that is one of the themes that we knew the defense was going to be pushing on.
Now, they're also trying to chip away at David Pecker's credibility and they're doing that by asking him some questions about interviews he had given with prosecutors saying, you know, he -- going back to the August 2015 meeting, that this is the meeting where the prosecutor city of alleged conspiracy between Donald Trump, Michael Cohen, and David Pecker was hatched in which they agreed to catch and kill these deals to help the campaign.
So they're asking David Pecker about his initial interviews with prosecutors when he said that the meeting was at a different date than the date that it actually was, and that he didn't remember Hope Hicks being there in which he later said that she was so trying to suggest that maybe he is altered his story. It's a common tactic that defense lawyers use to try to cast some doubt on the credibility of the witness and try to make it as though that they've been rehearsed pointing out how many times David Pecker has met with prosecutors.
He said he's met with them about four or five times this year, which Trump's attorney and doing the questioning here, Emil Bove said, that seems like a lot of times. So, just trying to cast some doubt in the credibility of David Pecker's testimony. He has been on the stand now for three days. He's given more than five hours of testimony for the prosecution, where he is laid out a story and telling them the narrative of these catch-and-kill deals, repeating how he had done three of them of -- buying a story of a door man who said that he had a knowledge of -- that Trump had fathered an illegitimate child, which was a false story, buying the Karen McDougal story and then bringing the Stormy Daniels story, to Michael Cohen repeatedly saying that he had done that for the campaign.
And so, Trump's attorneys now getting their first chance to try to challenge that. Cross-examination is expected to go for several hours, I'm told. So David Pecker will be back on the stand tomorrow morning where they will likely get into some of the more specific of this case. But right now today, in their first swing at him, they're focusing on -- just to suggest that this was normal, that having catch-and-kill deals is not illegal and it was as he put it, standard operating procedure for magazines and media to work with politicians -- Jake.
TAPPER: And, Kara, first of all, it's Emil Bove. Is it Bove is how the last name is pronounced?
SCANNELL: Yeah. Emil Bove.
TAPPER: OK, good to know.
SCANNEL: He's one of Trump's attorneys. He's handling the cross.
TAPPER: No, I asked -- I asked my staff, how do you pronounce Emil? And they told me Emil, but I forgot to ask about Bove.
All right. And any case just so you know what's going on right now. So the assistant district attorney, Josh Steinglass, is objecting and getting into the objection they had about Bove's line of questioning when it came to David Pecker. Steinglass is right now arguing that Bove's questions about the FBI interview were, quote, improper and left the jury with a misimpression.
Steinglass objecting to Bove trying to seemingly undermine the memory at the very least, if not the credibility of David Pecker, which is what you would expect a defense attorney to do I suppose, Kara Scannell.
SCANNELL: Right. I mean, you see this all the time in cross- examination. They tried to bring up notes from an FBI interview or from grand jury testimony, and then try to challenge the memory as you say, of the witness, and show them what are inconsistent statements and then have them try to explain why they're inconsistent before the jury.
So, Steinglass now that the jury has left for the day, is challenging how much Trump's attorneys can do this going forward because Pecker is the first witness. So the question here will be trying to set the tone of how this can be used to challenge not just him, but other witnesses as this trial plays out.
[16:30:11]
TAPPER: All right. Thank you so much, Kara Scannell. Jim?
SCHULTZ: So it's funny. You mentioned -- you just mentioned a few minutes ago the John Edwards case, right? So there are a lot of parallels here with the John Edwards case. Interestingly enough, that was a campaign finance case brought against them. And in this particular and in that case, he was acquitted and I think that has a lot to do with why federal charges weren't brought in connection with this because of those parallels, because they lost that case, which really goes to the underlying case here, right?
They're bringing in these -- it's a campaign, its a campaign issue. New York state law, but also there are some federal undertones. There in order to get to that felony, you have to show that there was a crime being covered up in this case. He wasn't charged, probably not charged because they lost that case against Edwards.
TAPPER: So because of "United States of Scandal", I'm not sure if you know that show that we've done on here on scene because of that, I remember a little bit about that case.
We're waiting for Donald Trump to come out. And as soon as he speaks, we will bring that to you live. And it was -- there are clear similarities in terms of what you're spending money on in terms of an extramarital relationship, and how much of that is done for campaign and how much of that is done to protect your family without question?
The key difference I would say is in that case, it was people. It was it was contributors and supporters of John Edwards who are spending the money. Bunny Melon and another individual in Texas, I forgot his name. But those two individuals were spending money to keep Rielle Hunter out of the limelight.
But yeah, I mean the basic point you're making the money was spent to protect the brand of John Edwards and the jury had to decide, well, how much of that was for politics and how much of that was for his personal life. And they couldn't really decide at the end of the day, at least not with a unanimous jury, that was relevant, although they weren't the candidate themselves, the individuals.
ANKUSH KHARDORI, SENIOR WRITER, POLITICO MAGAZINE: Yeah. No and Jim is exactly right. I mean, the Edwards case has no doubt. Oh --
TAPPER: You can keep talking until he speaks.
KHARDORI: The Edwards case I'm sure loomed large when federal prosecutors were engaging with this fact pattern. And that case and that experience did lead them to be cautious in this area.
TAPPER: Yeah. Let's listen into the defendant.
DONALD TRUMP, FORMER U.S. PRESIDENT & 2024 PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: Thank you very much, everybody. Today was breathtaking in this room, you saw what went on, it is breathtaking and amazing testimony?
This is trial that should have never happened. This is a case they should have never been filed and it was really an incredible -- an incredible day, open your eyes and we get let this continue to happen to our country, but another matter, you know the economy is just been border to be doing very badly. The stock markets way down and some horrible numbers came out, including very high numbers on inflation.
And in particular gasoline at $7.5 in California that usually leads the way. It's going to happen here too. And very importantly, as you look at the various colleges all over the country and beyond colleges, because it's happening in other areas, too. You see what's happening on the front having to do with Palestine and Israel and protests and hate, anger Biden, or sending an absolutely horrible message horrible, horrible message. He has no idea how to message. He can't speak. He can't put two sentences together. He does know what to do.
This is not a president. This is somebody that shouldn't be doing what he's doing because he can't do it. He can't do it well. We're having protests all over.
He was talking about Charlottesville. Charlottesville was a little peanut and was nothing compared in the hate wasn't the kind of hate that you have here. This is tremendous hate.
And we have a man that get talked about it because he doesn't understand it. He doesn't understand what's going on with our country. He doesn't understand that all over the world we're being laughed at as a country because of him and his administration.
And today, we had a year because I was forced to be here. I'm glad I was because it was a very interesting day in certain way, but the U.S. Supreme Court had a monumental hearing on immunity. The immunity having to do with presidential immunity, and I think it was made clear. I hope it was made clear that a president has to have immunity. You don't ever president or at most she could say it would be a ceremonial president. That's not what the founders had in mind.
And I'm not talking about ceremonial, we want presidents that can get things done and bring people together. So I heard the meeting was quite amazing, quite amazing. And the justices were on their game.
[16:35:01]
So let's see how that all turns out. But again, I say presidential immunity very powerful presidential immunity is imperative, or you practically won't have a country anymore.
Thank you very much. Thank you.
TAPPER: All right. The defendant, Donald j a Trump, after this third day of testimony of former tabloid magnate David Pecker coming out not attacking witnesses, not attacking jurors. So his lawyers can be happy about that.
Going into campaign issues, legitimate campaign issues, but as always worth a fact check.
So let's bring in CNN's Daniel Dale. Daniel, we heard talk of the stock market down, which is true, inflation up, gas in California, Charlottesville being a peanut -- give us what you got.
DANIEL DALE, CNN REPORTER: Yeah. So, Charlottesville -- I mean, former from president Trump said the Charlottesville protests in 2017 was a little peanut compared to what were seeing now in college campuses pro-Palestinian protesters. I guess that's a matter of opinion on which I can't render a definitive fact check.
But let's remember the fact that a woman, a counter protester was murdered there in Charlottesville. We've had no reports of anything like that happening on any college campus today, and these pro- Palestinian protests. He said the hate in Charlottesville paled in comparison to the hate were seeing their -- again, a matter of opinion, but lets remember, there was neo-Nazi and other white nationalist hate in Charlottesville. So remember those points.
On gas prices, former President Trump again said it just been announced, California, a gas is $7.5 per gallon. There always are, Jake, some outlying rural, a deserted stations in California that have high prices. But today's average according to AAA is $5.41 per gallon.
And then on the stock market, yeah, it has fallen that today in the wake of the GDP report. But if you look, I have the S&P numbers right in front of me. If you look at one year, it's up 25 percent year-to- date, its up more than 6 percent six months, its up 22 percent. So we have had a bit of a decline, but let's not suggest that the stock market has plummeted under President Biden or in the last year in general.
TAPPER: Daniel, just a point of clarification. I don't want to be accused of fact checking our fact-checker, but $5.41 you noted as the average gas prices that's the average gas price in California.
DALE: In California, yeah.
TAPPER: In California, you didn't specify because in the United States as a whole, its $3.65.
DALE: That's right. I always appreciate a good fat check. Thank you, Jake.
TAPPER: All right. Years ago, I was a fact checker. That was how I got into this business. Thank you so much, Daniel, always good to have you in here.
But I mean, Jim, you got to be happy that he's at least generally speaking sticking to things he's allowed to talk about and not violating the gag order.
SCHULTZ: His lawyers have to be happy about that, right.
TAPPER: Yeah.
SCHULTZ: I think no doubt about that. I mean, getting it just the fact that he's mentioning Charlottesville has to make his campaign cringe at this point, right? Like that just brings back all those bad memories about that issue that was that was a really bad issue for him at the time. I was in the White House when all that was -- when all that was unfolding and to bring that back now was a big mistake on his part politically to raise that. But the rest of it is campaign rhetoric, right?
And you also saw him, he looked a little tired. It was a long day for me. You know, I don't think it was a good idea to kind of go out and do that -- do that press avail in any way, shape, or form. If he's not going to go out, be sharp and make his points.
TAPPER: And Jim raises really interesting point, David and Jamie, which is why wearing of Charlottesville. Like that is one of the ugliest moments of his presidency and yes, we are seeing protests all over the country, most of them peaceful, most of them in support of Palestinian rights. There has been some anti-Israel sentiment and there has been some antisemitic sentiment, without question.
But that's not what the neo-Nazis and the Unite the Right rally were doing. That was not a peaceful march that turned into something ugly. It was ugly from the word go.
JAMIE GANGEL, CNN SPECIAL CORRESPONDENT: Right, and actually, he started this, at least this morning. I just quickly was looking through. This is a new theme that he's -- he's playing on. He thinks, and perhaps rightly, that people are very upset about what's going on on college campuses, just like the border. He sees it as an issue to bring up.
I just to go back to when he came out of the courtroom, the first thing he said and I think this -- Daniel Dale would agree was actually true. He said, today's testimony in court was breathtaking.
TAPPER: Fact check, true.
GANGEL: It was -- it was breathtaking.
(CROSSTALK)
TAPPER: What was the most breathtaking thing for you today in court? I always personally surprised to hear David Pecker calling White House aides, Hope Hicks and Sarah Huckabee Sanders, now Governor Sarah Huckabee Sanders, and asking them, their opinion of whether Karen McDougal's hush money contract should be extended and them saying yes.
[16:40:05]
That's -- that is breathtaking.
GANGEL: Right. And actually, from there, I went we've talked about Hope Hicks maybe being a witness. I turn to David and I said, do you think Governor Sanders may be called as a witness in this case. There's one thing that wasn't sort of a shocking is that but I wonder from the jury's point of view whether it speaks to David Peckers credibility. There are sometimes things that people just say in a certain way and it cuts through.
And this was about when David Pecker says to Michael Cohen, why should I pay? I just paid $30,000 for this doorman's story. Now you're asking me to pay $150,000 for the Karen story? I said I'm not a bank.
In other words, and this place to Trump -- Trump wasn't paying him back for these things. I just think little anecdotes like that. Yes. The defense is going saying you didn't remember that Hope Hicks was at a meeting? I think that weighed against something like this actually helps the prosecutors with Pecker's credibility.
DAVID CHALIAN, CNN POLITICAL DIRECTOR: And I would just say back to the former president coming out there, this has been a shift in strategy in the last couple of days. All of his outside court appearances had been solely focused on railing against --
TAPPER: Michael Cohen --
CHALIAN: These prosecutions and witnesses. So I don't know if it's the waiting for the gag order ruling or the threat of that or he's gotten advice that just as you have this opportunity in front of a microphone, every day with so much attention on it. Use it for the purpose of your campaign, but it -- this is now the second day in court where when we see him, he is on an anti-Biden, more political message than he is on his legal message.
KHARDORI: Yeah, I completely agree that possibly the threat of the gag order sort of hanging over this, right? And the judge may have even looking at this and wondering, well, can this man really reform his behavior, or how serious to the sanctions need to be -- he struck me as quite low energy to coin a phrase, borrow one I guess.
TAPPER: You really know how to hurt a guy.
(LAUGHTER)
KHARDORI: But it's a step in the right direction. I think that thing that his boys must be happy about this. I completely agree with Jim, but all of these comments he's been making on video and true thing or whatever. They're currently the subject of this contempt hearing.
But the prosecutors also may have the option of introducing those comments in trial because these are typically these statements from the defendant our admissions that can be entered into evidence by the prosecution. So the government may be able to say at the end of the day like, just play a series of clips from the last week or two saying, this is what this man was doing. He was on trial. He was railing against you. He's attacking witnesses. He was disobeying the judge's orders.
TAPPER: Yeah. There was a critical detail of this case that was not handled before court joined for the day. And that you just heard a little allusion to it.
Our special live coverage continuous in just a moment.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[16:47:27]
TAPPER: Just before the judge would call former tabloid magnate David Pecker back to the witness stand today, prosecutors stopped him. They wanted to flag yet for additional examples of what prosecutors allege were instances of Donald Trump violating his gag order to not disparage witnesses, jurors or staffers or family of the judge and the prosecutor.
Here's one of them described in court from Donald Trump in a radio interview Monday with "Real America's Voice".
(BEGIN AUDIO CLIP)
TRUMP: That jury is picked so fast, 95 percent Democrats. The areas is mostly all Democrat. You think of it as a just a purely Democrat area. It's a very unfair situation, that I can tell you.
(END AUDIO CLIP)
TAPPER: The panel is back and David Chalian, Judge Merchan has still not issued a ruling in whether or not Donald Trump violated the gag order and the pretend previous instances. And now, the prosecutor has four new ones.
Do you think that he can be deterred from this? In other words, like the last to meet -- post court appearances, he adhered to the gag order.
CHALIAN: Right.
TAPPER: Do you think that that's working at all? Do you think a penalty might have an effect?
CHALIAN: Well, as we were discussing, I do wonder if it's some kind of demonstration that he can alter his behavior prior to this ruling coming in. I don't know if that is part of his strategic calculation.
But what I also -- it seems to me how much longer are we going to wait for this judged to have this ruling? Because or the proxy, if he does indeed violate the gag order, again, in a few hours on Truth Social, or something, every day the prosecutor is going to start with like now we have a few more a few more, a few more and do each of those need to be adjudicated?
It just seems to me, if you're going to have a game plan and ground rules, which I guess the gag order is already supposed to be the ground rules, but whether or not that's being violated and therefore enforced, don't you kind of need that in the course here before the trial gets too much deeper into it?
TAPPER: And we should know, Jamie Gangel, it's not just -- he's not only gagged from saying bad things about witnesses, he's gagged from saying anything about witnesses. And the reason I bring that up is because here's another example of
him allegedly breaking the gag order. This is from this morning when he made a stop on the way to court to talk about David Pecker, the key witness so far in a positive way.
Take a listen.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
REPORTER: What have you thought of David Pecker's testimony so far? When was the last time you spoke to him?
TRUMP: No, he's been very nice. I mean, he's been -- David's been very nice and nice guy.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
[16:50:02]
TAPPER: Now, it sounds innocent enough to maybe some people. But the prosecutor said, today, quote, this is a message to Pecker, be nice. It's a message to others. What do you mean?
GANGEL: And we've heard that before. I mean, this is sort of Donald Trump M.O. You know, I was thinking at first, maybe Judge Merchan is waiting because just having this hanging over Donald Trump's head might cause -- but it's not, nothing is going to restrain Trump.
I don't know. One of the tricky things here for Judge Merchan and the lawyers can talk about this other than $1,000 fine --
TAPPER: Each -- for each violation.
GANGEL: For each one, which is not going to bother Donald Trump too much, when you step it up, it's incarceration. And I think we've all pretty much agree, that's not going to happen.
KHARDORI: There are a couple of intermediate options to that. If I were the D.A.'s office, I'd be considering. Again, it's very possible all this stuff can come into evidence. But second, and they alluded this last week, if he keeps it up, I think they're going to stop giving his lawyers advanced notice its of which witnesses are being called, on which days.
And that is an actual significant tactical disadvantage in a trial because if you don't know which witnesses are going on, which days, you don't know.
TAPPER: You can't prep.
KHARDORI: -- lawyers need to be ready, who needs to be ready to cross examine, which evidentiary issues you need to be prepared to address, what documents you need to have to put into evidence or impeach someone. That's way more significant than $50,000.
TAPPER: That's interesting. Jim, I saved this one for you because its from your hometown in mind, Philadelphia. Channel 6, Donald Trump gave an interview to Channel 6 this week, and he brought up Mr. Cohen or he was asked about Mr. Cohen. Either Way, Michael Cohen was discussed. Here it is.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TRUMP: Michael Cohen is a convicted liar and he's got no credibility whatsoever. He was a lawyer and you rely on your lawyers.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
TAPPER: It's Channel 6 Action News exclusive. It says there.
It's also -- I'm no lawyer, but it's pretty cut and dry gaze of a violation of the gag order.
SCHULTZ: I don't think that's going to stop at all. I think, you know, Michael Cohen is going to be front and center in Donald Trumps mind. He had a date today where it came out, tried to talk about the campaign, seemed a little unclear comfortable at that, wanted to press away, but didn't -- I think you're going to see time and time again and Cohen's going to do everything he can to try to draw them out early and often so that Donald Trump is going out and making comments like this about Michael Cohen.
He is enemy number one for Donald Trump, and he's not going to be able to help himself there.
TAPPER: So, now, there's going to be an additional hearing next Wednesday afternoon in all likelihood, with these new instances, do you think?
KHARDORI: It's hard to say. I mean, it's a little curious. I understand the logic of like maybe holding this over at Trump's head and seeing if you can reform his behavior. But I do also have to completely echo what David said here earlier, there is an order in place. It's very strange for trial to be going on going with a prosecutor saying this defendant is violating the order over and over again, and the judge isn't resolving the issue.
TAPPER: It sounds like you're calling it a two-tiered system of justice.
KHARDORI: Perhaps.
TAPPER: There's a -- we are not.
CHALIAN: By the way, Donald Trump doesn't have to be in that Wednesday hearing, does he, on this issue? Because he's supposed to campaign in Michigan and Wisconsin next Wednesday.
TAPPER: Is that right?
CHALIAN: Yeah.
TAPPER: So one other thing just because were not New York courts and all their wisdom, which I don't mean sincerely, is not allowing cameras in the courtroom, despite the obvious public interest in this. So here is the best we can do, which is reporting on some of Trump's body language and card.
He smirked, just once when Pecker recounted Trump telling a roomful of people, that Pecker knows more stories about him than anyone else in the room. And when prosecutors asked about the "Access Hollywood" tape, Trump had his eyes closed with a scowl on his face.
Now, I don't know if this courtroom sketch from the artists, Christine Cornell, is from that exact moment, although his eyes are closed and get that chyron off there. And I'm sure -- there -- thank you so much.
Donald Trump scowling and frowning but it does seem to -- you know that faced, Jim? Is I recognizable to you?
SCHULTZ: We've all seen that.
(LAUGHTER)
TAPPER: But I'm going to -- what -- Jamie, what's going through his mind there? This is -- if this is the moment where he's talking about the "Access Hollywood" tape that is one of the lowest moments politically, that tape coming out, everybody thought, although it wasn't true that was the end of his political career and he wasn't going to be elected president.
GANGEL: You know, I was going to say that you never want to ask anyone what's going through Donald Trump's mind.
On the other hand, one of the things that's true about him is he's actually pretty transparent. He tells you what he's thinking. Let's just remember the timing. October before the election "Access Hollywood", October 7th.
These things happen -- the Stormy Daniels is two weeks before election day, October 27, 28, the timing is critical.
TAPPER: Yeah. And I will say, however much I wish there were cameras in the courtroom, I do enjoy the work of Christine Cornell and Jane Rosenberg, the courtroom artist. They're doing exemplary work.
Thanks to one and all. Appreciate it.
In addition to this critical day in the hush money cover up case, there was also a major hearing before the U.S. Supreme Court where another Trump defense team pushed for presidential immunity in a different criminal case.
[16:55:08]
We're going to talk about that next.
Plus, a brand new criminal case in Arizona involving several Trump allies, but not Mr. Trump himself. The Arizona secretary of state is going to join me. We need to get into all of that here on THE LEAD.
Stay with us.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
ANNOUNCER: This is CNN breaking news.
TAPPER: And welcome back to THE LEAD.
All in this hour in the law and justice lead and this big day for Donald J. Trump. Two of his criminal cases were in courtrooms at the same time. There is, of course, a Manhattan hush money cover up trial up in Manhattan. Testimony just wrapped up for the day.
