Return to Transcripts main page

CNN News Central

Defense for Donald Trump Cross-Examines Stormy Daniels After Her Testimony in Hush Money Criminal Trial; Former Trump Attorney Michael Cohen Expected to Testify in Hush Money Criminal Trial of Donald Trump Next Week; AXIOS: State Department Report on Israel's Conduct Expected Soon; Florida Sheriff Releases Bodycam Footage from Airman Shooting. Aired 8-8:30a ET

Aired May 10, 2024 - 08:00   ET

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

[08:00:00]

DAVID MCKENZIE, CNN SENIOR INTERNATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Also a family tragedy. And June Steenkamp says that she will never come to terms with her daughter's death and how she died.

SARA SIDNER, CNN NATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: "How It Really Happened, Oscar Pistorius, The Blade Runner," premiers this Sunday night, 9:00 p.m., right here on CNN.

A new hour of CNN NEWS CENTRAL starts right now.

JOHN BERMAN, CNN ANCHOR: We are at the critical thing phase in the criminal trial of Donald Trump, all set up for Michael Cohen's testimony after the judge demeans Trump's defense lawyers in front of Donald Trump.

"You cannot ignore the feelings of your black and brown students." New outrage after a school board votes to restore the names of Confederate leaders that had been banned.

And incredible new images out of flood ravaged Brazil, a horse finding refuge on a roof, more than 100 people now killed, and the death toll is rising.

I'm John Berman with Kate Bolduan and Sara Sidner. This is CNN NEWS CENTRAL.

SIDNER: We know you're used to this by now, a live look at Trump Tower where we are standing by to see Donald Trump head back to criminal court soon with the aftermath of Stormy Daniels's really heated cross-examination still looming large. But this morning, attention turning back to Donald Trump's former White House aide, who described to jurors yesterday a meeting she arranged at the White House between Donald Trump and his then attorney and fixer, Michael Cohen. Cohen claims this was the meeting where the alleged plan to falsify business records was crafted. Cohen, by the way, expected to testify next week.

CNN's Kristen Holmes outside the courthouse this morning, as we wait to see Donald Trump leave Trump Tower for the court. Kristen, the case moving right along, but the big buildup here, we're now hearing Michael Cohen to testify next week. The preparation must be furiously going on there with Trump's team.

KRISTEN HOLMES, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Yes, Sara, I think we saw a lot of what, or at least a preview of what that's going to actually look like with Stormy Daniels, this kind of intense cross-examination, very aggressive by Susan Necheles, pushing Stormy Daniels to try to paint her as an opportunist, try to paint her as someone who is doing all of this for money or even as a liar. We saw a lot of what Susan Necheles did was pull up old tweets, old posts, and try to read them to Stormy Daniels, really with the point of trying to make it look as those Stormy Daniels had an axe to grind.

And that's what we expect from Michael Cohen as well. When I'm talking to members of Trump's legal team, his legal advisors, they say they are doing the most work to prep for Michael Cohen. They have been going through his podcast, his book, the book "Revenge," as well as his Twitter posts, which we know have been very aggressive towards Donald Trump.

And I do want to mention one thing about Stormy Daniels, because what we saw after court yesterday, in addition to talking about getting the case dismissed, we also saw that Donald Trump's lawyers were arguing to try and allow Donald Trump to respond to Stormy Daniels and the claims that she made during her testimony. Now, the judge denied that, said it's still under gag order. But then Stormy Daniels tweeted this, and see it certainly seems like she's goading him here when she says "Real men respond to testimony by being sworn in and taking the stand in the court. Oh, wait. Never mind." So clearly, they're trying to push some buttons. We'll see if Donald Trump responds. We know he does not want to break that gag order.

But I do want to quickly mention what we're seeing today. Madeleine Westerhout, that is not testimony that is done yet. And while she is a former White House aide, she sat outside the Oval Office, she was the one who arranged the meeting where they allegedly discussed falsifying records, she also was so much more. So when you're talking to Trump's team, they acknowledged that she might know things that she doesn't even no, she knows. Remember how the White House was at that time when she was there right after Trump got elected, there was a lot of chaos. And someone like Madeleine was the person who was really helping weather the storm. She was just an executive aide, but at the same time, she was in the meeting. She was sitting outside. She was welcoming every single person who came in and out of that office. She was really the lifeline to Donald Trump at certain times, because as we know, he didn't text, he didn't col. So if you were looking to get in touch with Donald Trump, you were likely trying to call Hope Hicks or trying to call Madeleine Westerhout. So she had all of this knowledge.

So when you talk to Trump sources, do they think that she is has any animus towards Donald Trump? No. Does she an axe to grind? No. But does she have a lot of information that could potentially be damaging to the former president? That's what we're going to wait and see. SIDNER: Yes, she's certainly talked about the fact that there was a

meeting between Cohen and Donald Trump. But as Norm Eisen, who has been in the court, has been saying, her testimony so far has helped both sides of this case. So we will have to see what she says next.

[08:05:04]

Thank you so much, Kristen Holmes live reporting for us outside of court. Kate?

KATE BOLDUAN, CNN ANCHOR: And joining us inside the studio is CNN legal analyst and criminal defense attorney Joey Jackson. So Joey, let's talk Stormy Daniels testimony for a bit. It's all -- no matter the assessment from everyone on the outside or even sitting in the courtroom, it's all about how it comes across in the eyes of the jury. The way "The Washington Post" put it, it was Stormy Daniels testimony on sex, lies, and money was risky for both sides. How do you measure success or failure with explosive testimony like that?

JOEY JACKSON, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: Yes, it's a great question. Good morning to you, Kate. I think that, listen, I think the defense went in, and I think potentially things that they set up for the following day backfired. You have what you need. The whole purpose of cross- examination is to set up your case. At the end of the day, you could talk about sex day, night, and in-between. Do you know about business records? Do you know about ledgers, ma'am? Do you know about invoices? You have no knowledge or nothing to share what that jury with respect to that, is that right? OK. So why are we here, right?

Now, we know why we're here, because she provides the motivation and the impetus for the Trump team, right, to kill her story. If it gets out, that's the argument, the voters may, for example, abandon Trump. So they're overwhelmingly concern. But at the end of the day, obviously, right, it's salacious what she has to testify to. But does it go to material facts of the case?

The whole purpose in my view, just my view, that she testified and they went after her, the defense did, right, another time, was for the ego, I believe, of Donald Trump. I want you, he probably told his team, to humiliate her, right? I want you to just really skewer her on the witness stand. And you really don't try a case for your client. You try it for the jury. So at the end of the day, I think she said a lot of compelling things and potentially some things that backfired on the defense.

BOLDUAN: So then I want to know what category this exchange goes into, because they spent time trying to draw inconsistencies, discrediting her. That was obviously the goal of the defense. And then there's this exchange from Necheles and Daniels back-and-forth, "So you have a lot of experience in making phony stories about sex to appear real, right?" Stormy laughs and says, "Wow, that's not how I would put it. The sex in the films is very much real, just like what happened to me in that room." "All right, but you're making fictionalized stories about sex. You write those stories." "No. The sex is real. The character names might be different, but the sex is very real." And then, "And now you have a story you have been telling about having

sex with President Trump, right?" "And if that story was untrue, I would have written it to be a lot better." And Daniels laughs.

What does this do?

JACKSON: I think it just backfires. Why are we talking about this? In other words, I think that their client, Mr. Trump, is obsessed with the notion that the affair didn't happen.

BOLDUAN: That's what they said in opening. He maintains it didn't happen.

JACKSON: It didn't happen, so they're going after her about that now.

Now, the other side, the prosecution, it's so detailed, so unless she has the most vivid imagination known to humanity and is a pathological liar, right, did the affair not happen? Why go in on the affair? Go in on the critical issue. We're here about business records and the falsification of them. Thats what it's all about. You don't add anything to that equation. And by the way, catch and kill on its own is perfectly legal, right? And so to the extent that that is proper, you can do that. There's a nondisclosure agreement, that legal and everything else. What are we talking about?

So to go into the sex, it was like, come on, keep your eye on the prize. You have to be disciplined in the courtroom. And everyone, Kate, does things differently. I just think that spending all that time with her backfired because of answers to questions that we just saw like.

BOLDUAN: And it left the judge scratching his head in some regard. They asked for mistrial once again over the testimony. He denies it, and he really, demeans, is the right word. I think that's how John put it earlier. Merchan saying, "For some unexplained reason, which I still don't understand, there was no objection to certain testimony which was later used in the motion for mistrial in Tuesday and again today. For example, the mention of a condom. I agree that shouldn't have come out. I wish those questions hadn't been asked and I wish those answers hadn't been given. But for the life of me," the judge says, "I don't know why Miss Necheles didn't object. She had just made about 10 objections, most of which were sustained. Why on earth she wouldn't object to the mention of a condom I don't understand." As a criminal defense attorney, you're sitting there, you hear a judge say that, and you think what?

JACKSON: So it's problematic. You never, ever, ever, particularly in this case with that defendant, the former president, want to be demeaned in front of the judge. You're there. You want to be as prepared as possible. You want to do your job. And if anything, you want the judge to inform your client that you're attorney is advocating for you in the best way possible.

And I think what the judge is saying, don't come to me about a mistrial. You have an opportunity and an obligation to object to questions that you don't think the jury should hear. If you don't object, don't expect me to do my job for you, and so don't come crying about what was admitted when you allow it because you said nothing. And that's a bad look, obviously, for --

[08:10:07]

BOLDUAN: Do a yes or no, I dare you. Do you think that Stormy Daniels testimony makes it more or less likely that Donald Trump will testify, even though it was already in the unlikely --

JACKSON: You know what, Kate, I think it bates him and goads him into it, particularly with the tweet she made last night, right, about, hey, real men get on the witness stand. So I think it goads him into it. I think it would be a huge mistake. And this, I'll end here, you have to be disciplined in cases. And I think their cross of her, in my view, was not disciplined. It didn't speak to the issues before us. And as a result of that, it was a miss. And if they goad him into testifying, that is the prosecution, as a result of Stormy's testimony, boy, oh, boy, they have done some job.

BOLDUAN: Boy, oh, boy.

(LAUGHTER)

BOLDUAN: Joey Jackson, thank you.

JACKSON: Thank you, Kate.

BOLDUAN: John?

BERMAN: I'm going with zero times zero is zero on a chance --

(LAUGHTER)

BOLDUAN: So there's still a chance?

BERMAN: No, zero times zero is zero.

(LAUGHTER)

BOLDUAN: There's no math allowed in this show.

BERMAN: All right, this morning, the family of the black U.S. airman shot in his apartment by a deputy is demanding answers. We've got new reporting on the investigation.

And then did Israel violate international law using U.S. weapons? We've got new reporting on the Biden administration's conclusion in a new report that is about to be made public.

And then a cosmic storm is in the forecast. And as we know, this is exactly how the Fantastic Four got their superpowers. Even if this does not happen for you who, you could get an extraordinary view of an extremely rare phenomena.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[08:16:07]

BERMAN: All right very shortly, US Secretary of State, Antony Blinken is expected to deliver a highly anticipated report to Congress on Israel.

According to CNN contributor and AXIOS reporter, Barak Ravid, the report will be very critical, but stopped short of finding that Israel broke international law and its use of US weapons in Gaza.

Let's get right to CNN's Jeremy Diamond in Jerusalem this morning. This has been a report that people have been waiting on, Jeremy.

JEREMY DIAMOND, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Yes, no doubt about it, John.

And interestingly, it seems that it will stop short according to Barak Ravid of outright saying that Israel has violated international humanitarian law, but it will nonetheless be a very critical report it seems, outlining several incidents that took place during the war in Gaza that raise serious concerns about potential violations of humanitarian law.

And I expect, John, that this will simply add another layer to the tensions that we have been witnessing between the United States and Israel over the course of the last week.

When you think about the number of issues that have currently come up that have caused tensions not only between the two countries, the two administrations, but directly between President Biden and Prime Minister Netanyahu, we really are at a seemingly low point in relations between the United States and Israel, despite the fact that the United States continues to give enormous support to Israel in its war in Gaza.

We have seen over the course of this week as President Biden made these very public statements threatening to withhold additional weapons shipments to Israel if it moves forward with a major ground offensive in Rafah.

And just yesterday, we heard from the Israeli Prime Minister firing back, essentially saying that Israel will fight alone if it needs to and talking about this disagreement with President Biden hoping that the US and Israel can get over this latest disagreement as he sees it.

There is no sense drawn despite these tensions that Israel is going to back down from its current plans to expand its military activity, to expand into potentially a full-throated ground offensive into Rafah, into those population centers that President Biden has drawn as a red line here, all indications are that from Israeli officials that I've been speaking to, that they are defiant in the face of this enormous and mounting US pressure.

There are of course realities on the ground, military realities in terms of the munitions shipments that could be cut off to Israel here, but nonetheless, the posture currently from the Israeli government is one of full speed ahead. No indication yet as to when that ground offensive in Rafah could

expand into something much more significant, but we are, of course already seeing major impacts on the ground.

One of Rafah's three hospitals has already shut down as a result of these military activities. We are seeing about 110,000 people according to UNRWA, who have already been displaced to areas north of Rafah and simply not adequate conditions for those people with many more who could potentially follow -- John.

BERMAN: All right, Jeremy Diamond in Jerusalem this morning. Jeremy, thank you very much -- Sara.

SARA SIDNER, CNN ANCHOR: All right, the potential fallout from another war, a new warning from the FBI, what they are calculating could be Russia's revenge because the US is supporting Ukraine in that war.

And a US Army airman shot dead by police in his own home. His distraught family says police this had the wrong apartment. Police say they went to the apartment they were called to by a neighbor. Now, bodycam video is showing us all what happened.

Details on the investigation there ahead.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[08:24:02]

SIDNER: This morning a family is mourning their son.

A US Airman who was shot and killed by a deputy in his own apartment, his mother demanding answers. She knows she can never have her son back, but she wants his reputation restored.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

MEKA FORTSON, ROGER FORTSON'S MOTHER: So, to the Sheriff's Department that took my gift that has so many, so many accolades inside of him, to err is human and to forgive is divine. I need you guys to tell the truth about my son. I need you to get his reputation right.

BENJAMIN CRUMP, ATTORNEY: Yes.

FORTSON: If you have a heart, if you have a niece, a nephew, any young person in your life, tell the truth about my son.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SIDNER: A deputy fatally shot 23-year-old Airman Roger Fortson last week while investigating a domestic disturbance call. A warning, what you are about to see is really disturbing.

This is newly released body camera footage you're going to see in a bit here showing what happened in the moments leading up to the shooting. [08:25:07]

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SHERIFF'S DEPUTY: Sheriff's Office. Open the door.

Sheriff's Office. Open the door.

SHERIFF'S DEPUTY: Step back.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SIDNER: And that is when the gun fires, shooting and eventually killing him. Police say the footage confirms their account of what happened, but acknowledged it came to a very tragic ending.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SHERIFF ERIC ADEN, OKALOOSA COUNTY, FLORIDA: This result is one we never hoped to encounter and I am also thinking about our team here and the deputy involved in the tragic event.

I've asked the Florida Department of Law Enforcement to handle the criminal investigation that is required under these circumstances.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SIDNER: Fortson's family maintains police went to the wrong apartment. He was on the phone with his girlfriend at the time.

Joining us now, a CNN senior law enforcement analyst, Charles Ramsey.

When you look at this video, because you know you have been through these trainings. The officers have been through these trainings when you are in command. What do you see there that is part of your training and perhaps what is not? Because I noticed, I counted the seconds, it is less than three seconds before that gun is fired by the deputy.

CHARLES RAMSEY, CNN SENIOR LAW ENFORCEMENT ANALYST: Well, first of all, my condolences to the Fortson family.

You know, I've been a consultant since I retired with 21 CP Solutions and as a result of that, I've viewed hundreds of body-worn camera video regarding use of force up to including deadly force.

And I think one thing is very important and that is that when you're reviewing these cases and we know a lot more now, after the fact, than the officer would have known at the time of the occurrence and that's what you have to really focus on.

What did they know? what did they see? What was the behavior of the individual that they came in contact with?

I watched that video. I watched the video several times. In my opinion, the use of deadly force at that moment was not

justified. And the reason I say that is because granted he was armed, he did have a handgun, clearly. That handgun was pointed downward.

SIDNER: Yes.

RAMSEY: It is not pointing up. The officer gave no commands at all to drop the weapon or do anything like that. The shooting was almost instantaneous, instantaneous.

And so under the circumstances, was there a threat? Yes.

But was there an immediate need to use deadly force? In my opinion, again, there will be some who will disagree with me. I would say no.

I mean, we know now he was in his own home. We know now he was an airman. We know now he legally owned a firearm. The officer would not have known any of that, so you know, at the time of the shooting though, the person was armed, but was he a direct threat at that moment? In my opinion, the answer is no.

SIDNER: You mentioned and we've been looking at just a still frame of the video of him with his gun down, coming to the door. Now, obviously you can see it there in his right hand.

But as you said, it is not pointed at the officer for. He is not using it as a threat to the officer at the time. The officer reacting very, very quickly. I do want to ask you about this idea from the family that they had the wrong apartment. Someone did call in saying that there was a disturbance, that they thought they heard somebody being slapped, and they wanted the police to come.

How do you get to the bottom of whether or not they got to the right door? And does that matter in an investigation like this?

RAMSEY: Well, I mean, first you start with the 911 tape and the call and locate that caller and find out exactly what they said, what they identified as the problem and where that was taking place.

But whether that was the right apartment or the wrong apartment, the use of deadly force is a separate issue. Was the officer justified in that particular case in using deadly force?

Now, when you look at the video, people see that he wasn't standing directly in front of the door. Well, that's consistent with training, you don't stand in front of a door or a window if you can avoid doing it because tactically, that would not be something you would do.

If he did look through a peep hole, he might not have seen the officer, but he did announce his office. He did say --

SIDNER: Twice.

RAMSEY: "This is the Sheriff's Department," and again, this is a tragic -- a tragic set of circumstances that took place. But at the moment the shot was fired, and again, even though the gun

was pointing down, I not only look at that, was there any motion at all that the gun was being brought up where it could have become a direct and immediate threat? And when you look at the video, there is no upward motion at all. The gun is just simply down. There is no indication that he was going to raise the weapon and there was no order to drop the weapon or anything like that.

Now, granted these things happen quickly, I've been at shootings. I know how it goes down, but I've also had situations where could I have shot? Yes. But did I? No.

And the reason is because that instant, that split second, you still have time and that's what you have to -- you're looking at this thing in a matter of seconds or less than a second in terms of what your decision-making is going to be.

[08:30:20]