Return to Transcripts main page
CNN Newsroom
CNN International: Monumental Day In Court For Trump In NY And Washington; Soon: Supreme Court Hears Arguments In Trump Immunity Case; Soon: Day Three Of Testimony From David Pecker At Hush Money Trial. Aired 8-9a ET
Aired April 25, 2024 - 08:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
[08:00:09]
ANNOUNCER: This is CNN breaking news.
JOHN BERMAN, HOST, "CNN NEWS CENTRAL": And the breaking news CNN special --
FREDRICKA WHITFIELD, HOST, "CNN NEWSROOM": Hello, and welcome to our viewers all around the world. I'm Fredricka Whitfield, and this is the CNN Newsroom.
Straight ahead, from Washington to New York, a major morning of legal drama ahead for Donald Trump. In just a couple of hours, the U.S. Supreme Court will consider his claims of presidential immunity in a case that could have huge implications for this year's election. And next hour, Trump is due in a New York courtroom for the resumption of his hush money trial. We'll have full coverage for you right here.
All right. We're about to witness one of the most significant days in U.S. legal history, and Donald Trump is at the center of all of it. In less than two hours, the U.S. Supreme Court will consider a monumental constitutional question, does the U.S. President have absolute immunity from prosecution for crimes committed while in office? The court's answer could determine whether Donald Trump can be tried for attempting to overturn the 2020 election.
And at the same time, arguments are unfolding at the U.S. Supreme Court. Trump will be in a downtown Manhattan courtroom for continuing testimony in his hush money trial. Former tabloid executive David Pecker returns to the stand and is expected to finally start talking about his connection to the payments made to porn star Stormy Daniels. Trump got his day started early, making a campaign stop at a New York construction site where he visited with union workers before heading into the courthouse. We're covering all of the many angles of courtroom action today.
Let's start with CNN's Senior Crime and Justice Reporter Katelyn Polantz in Washington. Good to see you this morning, Katelyn. So, a day like none other for Donald Trump ahead. The U.S. Supreme Court hearing on presidential immunity amid the hush money trial in New York. Take us through what we might expect today.
KATELYN POLANTZ, CNN SENIOR CRIME AND JUSTICE REPORTER: Well, this is going to be a major day for Donald Trump as a criminal defendant, somebody who is running for office again, but somebody who first and foremost has to face the courts. So, in New York in that hush money trial, he is going to be watching his longtime friend David Pecker, the tabloid king, the man over the National Enquirer, former chairman of American Media Incorporated, take the stand again to continue speaking about catch and kill schemes where his publication was in cahoots, and he is admitted to that with Michael Cohen, Donald Trump, the Trump campaign in 2016, to burry stories that would be negative about Donald Trump, especially related to alleged affairs with women.
David Pecker has already articulated some of that. He is going to continue on, and we're going to get to see what the defense team, what Trump's team does to try and impeach someone like Pecker on the stand, try and discredit him, whenever they get to cross-examine him. That's in the courtroom that Trump will be in today. That's in New York in the hush money criminal trial ongoing in front of the jury.
Separately, he is having lawyers before the U.S. Supreme Court in one of the most consequential cases about the American presidency in years where the U.S. Supreme Court justices are going to be hearing from the Justice Department and from Trump's team about protections around the presidency. How far that protection can go? Can someone who served as the President be charged with crimes for things that happened while he was in office? In this case, particularly, those charges are about the 2020 election and what Donald Trump was doing, leading up to and on January 6 of 2021 for that Capitol riot.
One of the big things there I'm watching, Fred, is how much the justices want to talk about Donald Trump himself and the allegations against him, this specific case in federal court related to January 6 and the 2020 alleged conspiracy he is charged with, or if they want to draw back, take this out of the Trump piece of it and talk much more about the history of the American presidency, which direction they're going there.
WHITFIELD: Well, likely, Special Prosecutor Jack Smith's team will want to do that to make some kind of reference points to history. Donald Trump's attorneys want to be able to establish that no matter what activity he was doing while in office, all of it was above board. It was OK. It was protected.
[08:05:00]
Is there any way in which to determine what the questioning might be coming from the justices who want to poke holes either -- in either argument before they're able to render a decision?
POLANTZ: Well, we'll have to see what direction they go. There is a lot of different arguments here. And they will be asking likely things where they see logic flaws, or there are pieces that haven't been explained to them yet. One of the things you mentioned, the Special Counsel's Office, the Justice Department, wanting to talk about American history and how this is an anomaly in court. We know that from their legal briefs.
But, we've also seen Trump's team trying to say that. Trump is -- they're trying to say Trump is being treated differently than other former presidents. And really, if the justices want to protect the presidency for all time, they need to make sure that there can't be charges against the President because it would spell disaster because of the way American politics currently is. That is a -- that's the other side of that argument. And we will have to see how much of the justices actually give credence to that.
WHITFIELD: All right. Katelyn Polantz, thank you so much. We'll check back with you.
All right. Now, let's get back to that, more on the U.S. Supreme Court hearing on presidential immunity. We're joined now by CNN Senior Supreme Court Analyst Joan Biskupic. Joan, great to see you. So this hearing --
JOAN BISKUPIC, CNN SENIOR SUPREME COURT ANALYST: God to see you.
WHITFIELD: -- examining Donald Trump's claims of presidential immunity from prosecution, is there any way in knowing what the focus will be for the justices as they get things underway?
BISKUPIC: Good morning, Fredricka. Yes, there is just so much suspense, because this is an untested question. We know that in 1982 the justices ruled that a former President could be immune in a civil proceeding, but left wide open the question of a much weightier situation involving a criminal prosecution. So, I'm anticipating how they look at that precedent from 1982, involving former President Richard Nixon being immune in a civil context, and how much they kind of look and examine whether the criminal situation is just so much more serious that a President and cannot be shielded there. And I think, frankly, that the precedents that former -- that Special Counsel Jack Smith has raised will likely lead to that. So, that's kind of the overall framing of just basic immunity question.
But then, Fredricka, I'll be listening for questions as to how the justices might start parsing some of the details. Are we talking only about official acts, or will they buy into the fact that maybe there were some private actions here that could be separated out? If the justices start asking questions, trying to parse whether Donald Trump's actions related to the 2020 election results, as he was protesting them, might have different characteristics in terms of being official, r being private in an effort to achieve a private gain, that could suggest that they might then want further proceedings in a lower court.
And as you know, this has already been delayed from the original start date of early March that the trial judge was seeking to try Donald Trump on these four federal accounts that have been brought by the U.S. Justice Department and Jack Smith. So, we'll be looking for clues to whether they can have a clean ruling here that will just send it back for a trial, or if they, by Donald Trump's claim that he is number one, absolutely immune, or number two, maybe give him a partial victory here that allows him to keep delaying and delaying and stop the start of trial. Fredricka.
WHITFIELD: OK. And then, the lower courts have already said that the President -- the former President does not have a total immunity. We know that the special prosecutor will reinforce those kind of arguments. But, will it be up to Trump's attorneys to try to come up with a new, a renewed argument since many of their arguments have already been defeated in the lower courts?
BISKUPIC: That's absolutely right. Your rights to concentrate on every single judge who is heard this question to this point, it's all said whatever immunity a President might have enjoyed while in office, it all dissolved in the criminal context once he left office. So, Donald Trump's lawyer, a man by the name of John Sauer, has a very, very steep hill to climb here. He lost his case below. What he is going to stress to these justices is that the constitutional separation of powers, that all three branches are independent of each other, forbids judges from sitting and reviewing a former President's actions that it just cannot be done, and he cites precedent back to the founding of the country up to today.
[08:10:00]
Jack Smith's lawyer, a man by the name of Michael Dreeben, is going to use that precedent in the opposite direction to say intentions of the framers of the Constitution never endorsed the theory that a President could be absolutely immune in this criminal context. And he will point to a recent, more recent, at least, precedent and that involves Watergate when Richard Nixon was forced from office and then President Gerald Ford pardoned him. And their pardon, Jack Smith's side is arguing, was in recognition that Richard Nixon could have been subjected to criminal prosecution for his misdeeds during Watergate, and that Gerald Ford would never have granted the pardon. Richard Nixon would have never accepted it without that understanding that former presidents are not shielded from prosecution from their criminal wrongdoing. Fredricka.
WHITFIELD: Yeah. That is a fascinating point. That's one that's going to resonate. Joan Biskupic, thank you so much.
BISKUPIC: Thank you.
WHITFIELD: All right. Let's take an even closer look at the legal arguments in both Mr. Trump's cases today. We're joined now by Bernarda Villalona. She was once a New York prosecutor, and now as a criminal defense attorney. Good to see you.
So, Oh, my gosh, there is so much and we say there are two, but there're really kind of around three that are rising to the top today. But, how do you prioritize? Let's focus on the two. How do you prioritize the importance of the cases today, more immediately, the hush money trial where Trump's attorney, Todd Blanche is credibility is on the line, using the word from Judge Juan Merchan, while once good friend David Pecker is also back on the stand today? Or do you think the U.S. Supreme Court hearing today upstages and potentially threatens these criminal cases against the former President?
BERNARDA VILLALONA, CRIMINAL DEFENSE ATTORNEY, & FORMER NEW YORK PROSECUTOR: No. I don't think that the United States Supreme Court hearings today is going to affect the New York cases, because I think the hearing before the United States Supreme Court, I think, is frivolous, in a sense. There is just no way that a President will have absolute immunity from any type of crime.
And just to be clear, in New York, the Appellate Division has already ruled on that and told Donald Trump that he wouldn't be able to proceed with that type of argument. Also, Judge Merchan, that was an argument that was put before him, and Judge Merchan had said that the argument was too late in nature, and decided that the case must go forward. Either way, today, we're in New York. We're waiting for a decision on the contempt hearing for that gag order violation, and we're also continuing with the jury trial having to deal with the 34 counts of falsifying business records. Good thing that Donald Trump does have a team of attorneys in order to deal with both of these matters.
But, as we go forward today, who knows at what time Judge Merchan is going to render a decision on those contempt charges. Hopefully, he'll do it before he starts court, because we know that every minute, every minute counts, because unless a decision is rendered, Donald Trump can continue making statements violating this gag order.
WHITFIELD: Right. And why wouldn't the judge render a decision before eyewitnesses, whether it's Pecker or others, who would take the stand today? Because, as you say, I mean, even this morning, Donald Trump went to a construction site, and again was saying disparaging words about the process, that he is being victimized and persecuted. So, what would preclude the judge from rendering a decision now before witnesses take the stand again?
VILLALONA: There is nothing that's precluding him from rendering a decision. I think he wants to render a written decision and hearings were heard on Tuesday. You had Wednesday off and they're back in court today. So, I don't think anything is stopping Judge Merchan from rendering decision. I think he is taking his time because he wants to be very meticulous with his words and the language that he uses, because this is going to be the first time that he is going to actually admonish officially in a criminal contempt hearing Donald Trump. And he wants to set the stage that if this happens again, if Donald Trump violates this gag order again, what are you going to do? What are going to be the ramifications of that? And he has to set that very clearly in his decision.
So, if this happens again, Donald Trump knows that there is a possibility that he can face jail time, whether it's a couple of hours, where it's days, or whether it's up to 30 days, which is highly unlikely.
WHITFIELD: OK. And then, let me ask you about what now seems to be kind of a third case, even though we're talking about Arizona, even though the former President is an unnamed co-conspirator, but it does say former President in the complaint, in an attempt to influence or undermine the 2020 election results in that state of Arizona. So, former chief of staff Mark Meadows, former attorney Rudy Giuliani are among those indicted, their potential cooperation in exchange for say possible deals, that could change a lot potentially for the former President. Right? [08:15:00]
VILLALONA: Absolutely. As a former prosecutor, sure, you can go forward with certain defendants and indict them in the grand jury, and that doesn't necessarily mean that you forego the chance of indicting others. Usually, what you can wait is to see if any of those, the defendants, that you've already indicted, whether they will be cooperating, whether they want to cooperate, and then tend to you better evidence, stronger evidence in a stronger ironclad case that would allow you to move forward with indicting possibly Donald Trump.
So, if I were Donald Trump and his team, I would be concerned because we know Rudy Giuliani, he is running out of money. Actually, he is out of money. He can barely have made it to the arraignment in Georgia. Exactly. He had to have someone give him a ride to Georgia in order to make it there for the arraignment. So, in terms of Rudy Giuliani, I will be concerned, Mark Meadows, I will be concerned, because the cases are piling up against Rudy Giuliani and Mark metals. And we know that pressure, where applying a pressure does push people to make decisions. So, I will be highly concerned if I were Donald Trump.
WHITFIELD: OK.
VILLALONA: He is not out of the woods.
WHITFIELD: He is not out of the woods yet. All right. Bernarda Villalona, thank you so much. Great to see you this morning.
All right. Straight ahead, we're tracking developments in both of the top two priority Trump legal cases being heard today. Our coverage continues with a look at what presidential immunity looks like. Also ahead, demonstrators on campuses taking a stand against the war in Gaza. A live report on the pro-Palestinian protests jolting American universities, when we come back.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
WHITFIELD: From New York to Los Angeles and cities in between, pro- Palestinian protests are sweeping through college campuses across the U.S. At the University of Texas in Austin, state troopers in riot gear confronted demonstrators, arresting dozens of them. At the University of Southern California in the heart of Los Angeles, nearly 100 protesters arrested there. The campus is now closed. Protests are still underway at Columbia University in New York. The U.S. House Speaker visiting the campus of Columbia Wednesday and calling on the university's president to resign if she cannot stop the chaos.
CNN's Polo Sandoval is joining us from outside Columbia University right now. How are things looking this morning? What's the tone? What's happening there?
POLO SANDOVAL, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Hey Fred. Good morning to you. The NYPD maintaining their persistent presence at the gates of Columbia University, making sure that ahead of what will likely be another day of off-campus demonstrations that we've seen just outside of Columbia for the last week or so on campus. That encampment is certainly another issue.
[08:20:00]
That's what university officials are trying to really speak to some of those students that are participating in this and trying to eventually bring this to a resolution. More on that in just a second.
But, you also mentioned Mike Johnson, the House Speaker, actually visited the campus yesterday with fellow Republicans. Not only was he speaking out against what he described as antisemitic behavior language, but also calling on the president to resign, in his words, until she can bring order to the university. Now, the Columbia University Board, for its part, supporting the president, saying that strongly supports President Minouche Shafik, as they continue to try to bring this to a resolution.
But, we've also heard from the Dean of the College of Columbia here saying that, without question, there have been these unacceptable examples of harassment and intimidation as well, that are -- that should be addressed. And also there are these continued concerns, Fred, about sort of the outside influence on some of these demonstrations, and potentially even trespassing onto campus. So, that is why university officials are hoping to address that, and ensuring those who are participating in the encampment that still remains are actual Columbia University students. So, that doesn't necessarily overshadow the message from those pro-Palestinian supporters on campus right now. Fred.
WHITFIELD: And then, Polo, I mean, yesterday, we saw protests were taking place on other university campuses as well, from California --
SANDOVAL: Yeah.
WHITFIELD: -- to Texas. I mean what is the latest picture on that?
SANDOVAL: Well, we know there were dozens of demonstrators in some of those events who were actually arrested from California to Austin as well. We do know that, of course, many of those didn't tend to be detained by authorities. But, this certainly just speaks to the broader picture here of universities from coast to coast that are grappling with how they respond to these demonstrations and subsequent counterdemonstrations as well.
So, it really just gives you a sense, yes, this may be the epicenter, at least where we began to see this latest movement. But, you are beginning to see more and more of these universities certainly have to walk that line between ensuring the safety of those on campus, and at the same time allowing those students to be able to participate in peaceful demonstration.
WHITFIELD: All right. Polo Sandoval there in New York at Columbia University.
All right. America's top diplomat is in Beijing at this hour. He is expected to raise concerns about China's trade policies. U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken is urging China to provide what he calls a level playing field for American businesses. The Biden White House says it wants to improve relations with Beijing. But, Blinken is also expected to push back on China's stance on Taiwan and its support for Russia. His high stakes trip comes just a day after the U.S. President signed a foreign aid bill giving support to Taiwan and Ukraine.
CNN's Kylie Atwood is covering the visit for us, and she is joining us now from Beijing. Good morning to you, Kylie, or maybe good evening, where you are actually. So, U.S.-China relations have been strained in recent years. So, what is the mission of Antony Blinken?
KYLIE ATWOOD, CNN NATIONAL SECURITY CORRESPONDENT: Well, he has a full plate while he is here. One thing I want to note is that he started his trip here in China by visiting Shanghai. He went to a local basketball game. He visited with students at the NYU Shanghai University in Shanghai. He also met with business leaders. He is really trying to take some time to focus on those people-to-people connections between the U.S. and China. That is not something that he was able to do on his last trip to this country, which was in June of last year, when relations between the two countries were really at historic lows. So, that was his focus today.
But, tomorrow, it's going to get much more tense. He is expected to sit down with his counterpart here in Beijing. And there is two main things that I think we should focus in on. First, he is going to have some very strong warnings for China against continuing to provide dual-use technology and goods to Russia that are enabling Russia to build up its defense industrial base in a way that it hasn't been able to do in decades. His case to the Chinese is going to be, they cannot purport to have a positive relations with European countries while they are also enabling Russia, fueling Russia, fueling the greatest threat to European security that we have seen since the Cold War.
The other thing that he will be focused on is the challenge of fentanyl in the U.S. Precursor chemicals for fentanyl come largely from China. They're flowing out of China, across the seas, and then into the United States, where fentanyl is the number one killer of Americans ages 18 through 49. The Secretary of State talks about that a lot. President Biden and President Xi spoke about this issue when they met last November in California. And so, this is something where the Secretary is going to continue pushing China to take more steps to go after those precursor chemicals to cut off that flow of fentanyl that is coming into the United States.
[08:25:00]
WHITFIELD: All right. Kylie Atwood in Beijing, thanks so much.
On to Bangladesh now where they're facing a heatwave, so extreme, many people gathered in the capital city of Dhaka to pray for rain. Schools have been shut down across the country as temperatures reach 42 degrees Celsius or 108 Fahrenheit.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
MAHMUD HASAN, TEACHER (Interpreted): In order for us to get rain, as well as all those blessings amid this crowd, we've gathered here to offer prayers. We ask for rain from Allah. Students, orphans, teachers and local people joined the prayers. We all prayed together for rain.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
WHITFIELD: Temperatures are expected to stay above average through the rest of the month.
And then, officials in Kenya say flash flooding in Nairobi has escalated to extreme levels after days of heavy rain. At least 32 people have died, according to the United Nations Humanitarian Affairs Office, and some neighborhoods have been completely submerged.
CNN's Larry Madowo is in one village, attempting to salvage what's left, with more rain on the way.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
LARRY MADOWO, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Where I'm standing, it used to be somebody's house. All this area used to be people's homes, all swept away. What's getting cleared back there, that debris that's left over, that's what used to be their homes. In these informal settlements around Nairobi, the houses are made of wood. They are made of iron sheets. They're very easily swept away when there is flooding, like what was experienced. It's a cycle. If it's not the flooding, it's the fire, and then flooding and the fire, and it goes on and on and on.
You see a lot of people trying to collect whatever little is left. Over their homes used to be some iron sheets, maybe some valuables, trying to figure out how to rebuild their lives after a devastating situation where every single thing they owned was swept away with these flash floods.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Nothing has come from the government. We only help ourselves because nobody has come to the rescue. You feel like you don't come from this country. You are maybe inferior, because if it was some somewhere else, maybe middle class or the highest class, government could have responded ASAP.
MADOWO: The residents in these areas, informal settlements or slums, as they are better known, often complain about emergency services not get into them during disasters. But, here is the extra complication. It's starting to rain one more time. The Kenya Meteorological Department has warned of heavy to very heavy rainfall still to be expected, and the fear here is that that may lead to a new wave of flooding.
Larry Madowo, CNN, Nairobi.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
WHITFIELD: And still to come, Donald Trump heading back to court, but his mind may be on a different legal proceeding hundreds of miles away. The crucial question being heard in the U.S. Supreme Court today, when we come back. Plus, traveling to Italy anytime soon? One of the world's most popular romantic tourist destinations rolls out a new tax. Why you could be affected? That story straight ahead.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[08:30:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
WHITFIELD: All right. Donald Trump and his legal troubles are creating major headlines in both New York and Washington today. In a little more than an hour, the U.S. Supreme Court will hear arguments about whether Trump is immune from prosecution for crimes he may have committed while he was President. And at the same time, Trump will be back in a New York courtroom for another day of testimony in his hush money trial. It is day three of testimony from magazine publisher David Pecker. He is expected to outline his role in arranging payments to porn star Stormy Daniels.
CNN's is Brian Todd takes a closer look at what's at stake in the immunity case before the U.S. Supreme Court.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
DONALD TRUMP (R), FORMER U.S. PRESIDENT AND 2024 PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: Presidents have to be given total immunity. They have to be allowed to do their job.
BRIAN TODD, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): In arguing that he has presidential immunity, Donald Trump says, if former presidents could be criminally prosecuted for official acts they took as President, that threat would loom over everything presidents do.
TRUMP: They have to make decisions and they have to make them free of all terror that can be rained upon them when they leave office or even before they leave office.
TODD (voice-over): Trump is making that argument before the Supreme Court in the January 6 election subversion case brought by Special Counsel Jack Smith, who counters Trump's argument by saying, no one is above the law.
NORM EISEN, FORMER OBAMA WHITE HOUSE ETHICS COUNSEL: The idea that somebody can commit crimes in the Oval Office and then in perpetuity for the rest of their life escape all accountability, is inimical to American law and the Constitution.
TODD (voice-over): The Supreme Court has barred civil lawsuits against a former President for official acts while in the White House, but hasn't addressed whether criminal charges can be filed. President Richard Nixon tried to invoke limited presidential immunity over judicial orders in 1974 when he tried to avoid handing over his White House tapes to the Special Counsel investigating the Watergate scandal. He didn't try to invoke immunity over criminal prosecution. The Supreme Court ruled Nixon had to turn the tapes over.
TIMOTHY NAFTALI, CNN PRESIDENTIAL HISTORIAN: When the Supreme Court decided that he had to turn over the tapes, Richard Nixon stopped making the argument that somehow they were protected by immunity or executive privilege. He turned them over.
TODD (voice-over): And those tapes contained evidence that Nixon was involved in the Watergate cover-up. Shortly after handing the tapes over, Nixon was out.
RICHARD NIXON, 37TH U.S. PRESIDENT: I shall resign the presidency effective at noon tomorrow.
TODD (voice-over): In this case, Trump argues his actions after the 2020 election were all part of his official duties as President.
TRUMP: We've had tremendous voter fraud, determinative voter fraud. But, we worked on that. That's what I was doing.
TODD (voice-over): Jack Smith disputes that, saying Trump was working to overturn the legitimate results where Joe Biden won and he lost. A Supreme Court victory for Trump, absolute immunity, could help him in at least one other criminal case as well.
ALAN MORRISON, PROFESSOR, GEORGE WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY LAW SCHOOL: It could very well end the Georgia case, as to him, or at least cut it down significantly. It has no impact, in my judgment, on the Mar-a- Lago case because everything he has been charged with occurred after January 21, 2021.
TODD (voice-over): And even if he doesn't get a clean win at the Supreme Court, Trump could get a partial win.
MORRISON: The court could say that some of his actions are official, and they have to send it back to the lower court. Trump would love to have this go back to the lower court because his principal weapon now is delay.
TODD: Even if prosecutor Jack Smith wins at the Supreme Court and can proceed with his case, he will likely have lost valuable time. The court may not rule on Trump's immunity claim until late June. And if that happens, there may not be enough time to start Trump's January 6 trial before the election.
Brian Todd, CNN, Washington.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
WHITFIELD: All right. Both the immunity case before the U.S. Supreme Court and the hush money trial in New York could have real political implications.
Here to talk about all this is Molly Ball, Senior Political Correspondent for The Wall Street Journal. Great to see you, Molly.
MOLLY BALL, SENIOR POLITICAL CORRESPONDENT, THE WALL STREET JOURNAL: Great to be here.
WHITFIELD: All right. So, it's a pretty significant day for Trump both in New York court and in -- before the Supreme Court. But, this morning, Trump went to a construction site, and one would think that perhaps he went there to talk about some kind of promise on the campaign trail as it relates to labor, but instead, he kind of went back to the same thing, criticism about the gag order, about this is campaign interference.
[08:35:00]
Is the latter working for him? I mean, he has complained about being kept from the campaign trail. This could be an opportunity for him to talk about what he is campaigning about. But, instead, it's kind of more belly aching about the court process for him.
BALL: Exactly. I think, on the one hand, all of these legal entanglements have been a major distraction for Trump. For him, logistically, he is not able to be on the campaign trail. As you say, he has complained about that. And we now do see him next week starting to schedule some campaign events in between the days that he has to be in court, although he does have to be in that New York courtroom four days a week.
It's also a distraction from the message of his campaign. The more the news is about these legal cases, whether it's the Supreme Court case, or the hush money case, the less he is talking about the issues where we do see him winning. Right? Voters do like his message on issues like the economy, issues like immigration. They do think that he is stronger on a range of issues than the current President. But, those aren't the things that he tends to be talking about, because he is so tied up and so fixated on these court cases, and because I think the court cases have become the core message of his campaign, as he makes this argument that it is a rigged system that is attacking him, and that the whole apparatus of the state, the establishment is in fact what he is campaigning against, as he runs for President.
WHITFIELD: As you were talking, we're looking at live pictures of the former President's motorcade make its way from Trump Tower, heading down to Lower Manhattan, where he will be in that courtroom once again, and this time, listening to resumed testimony from David Pecker. He used to be a great friend, as we just heard David Pecker describe. Now they no longer talk. But, Pecker is kind of telling all and is likely to elaborate on the arrangement made about how the former Attorney Michael Cohen would ask him and also participate in either collecting payments or keeping certain stories out of the headlines.
I mean, this continues to be very damaging, does it not, for the former President. I mean, it speaks to his credibility as well. He says he is being railroaded, persecuted. But then, now you've got this corroboration on the witness stand saying he was an active participant in all of this.
BALL: Absolutely. It certainly isn't good for him. And you can tell he doesn't want to be there by his demeanor and by the way he keeps complaining about it. And this has been wall-to-wall, and it's only been a few days. We've got six to eight weeks of this in store. So, there is going to be a constant drumbeat of reminders of this years- old behavior. I do think there is a danger. If Democrats are hoping that this is
sort of a silver bullet for them, the voters sort of tune this out. I think there is a very high degree of cynicism in the American electorate about politics and politicians and Trump, in particular, voters sort of long ago made the assessment that particularly when it comes to his behavior with regard to women, his behavior before he was President, they didn't have a very high opinion of that, to begin with, and I do think a lot of them are probably tuning this out as just sort of a tawdry tabloid mess, and not necessarily following the details of it very closely.
So, it will be interesting to see if it actually changes people's opinion of a man who they already have very firm opinions about and who has already been a very polarizing political figure for many years now.
WHITFIELD: All right. Again, we're looking at pictures from earlier this morning, when he was at the construction site, and one thought that he was going to take to the cameras and talk something about labor issues, but instead, he was focusing on the court. So, these cases are top of mind for him, as he makes his way to Lower Manhattan to once again be in the criminal courtroom there in Manhattan for that hush money trial.
Molly Ball, thank you so much, of The Wall Street Journal.
All right. I want to take you back to our main stories today. An Arizona grand jury as well now has indicted several key figures among Donald Trump's closest allies. Charges in the indictment range from conspiracy and forgery to engaging in fraudulent schemes. Among those indicted are reportedly the former White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows and the former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani.
Let's bring in CNN's Zachary Cohen, who is joining us live with more details on this, Zach. So, run us through the charges in this indictment.
[08:40:00]
ZACHARY COHEN, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Yeah, Fred. Nine counts, including multiple felonies in this indictment, and it broadly alleges that 11 fake electors from Arizona plus seven of Trump's closest allies after the 2020 election engaged in a conspiracy to quote "deceive the people of Arizona into thinking that Donald Trump had won this state" when he actually had not. And look, Donald Trump is not charged in this indictment, but he is referenced as unindicted co-conspirator number one. And the charging document makes very clear that this alleged conspiracy was carried out in service of him.
I want to go through a few of these names that you mentioned, Mark Meadows and Rudy Giuliani, both very close aides and allies of Donald Trump. They're both charged in this document. Boris Epshteyn, who remains very close to the former President and was actually in court with Donald Trump when he was arraigned in the New York hush money case, he is charged in this case as well for the first time. We have not seen him face criminal charges for his alleged role in efforts to overturn the 2020 election. Christina Bobb, who you may remember, is a former Trump attorney, a former OAN host, she is also just was put in to a job at the Republican National Committee related to election integrity. She is charged for the first time in this case as well.
So, prosecutors in Arizona, it's been about three years in the making this case has, but prosecutors in Arizona bringing this case in the immediate run-up to the 2024 presidential election, and bringing criminal charges against several big boldface names that were very close to Donald Trump in the time period after the 2020 election.
Now, look, Republicans, and including some of the fake electors that are charged in this case, are already pushing back. The Arizona GOP is essentially calling this a politically motivated indictment. They're saying -- they're calling it a blatant and unprecedented abuse of prosecutorial power aimed at distracting the public. One of the fake collectors, Jake Hoffman, who is a sitting state Senator here in Arizona, also pushing back and calling this indictment political and saying he unequivocally did not commit any sort of a crime.
But still, the wheels of justice are moving forward here in Arizona, and we're going to have to wait and see how this plays out. Donald Trump, again, not charged, but several people very close to him are, and prosecutors making very clear that their alleged crimes were done in service of the former President.
WHITFIELD: All right. Zach Cohen, there in Phoenix, thanks so much.
All right. Donald Trump back in court in New York next hour, as testimony continues in his criminal hush money case. We'll keep you posted on all those developments. Plus, in about 90 minutes, the U.S. Supreme Court will begin that crucial immunity hearing. All that special coverage starting at 9 a.m. Eastern right here on CNN and on CNN Max.
All right. Turning now to Italy, where the city of Venice is rolling out a new entry fee. The popular travel destination has become the first city in the world to charge tourists just to visit. If you want to see the famous canals, you'll now have to pay more than $5 to enter the city for the day.
Barbie Nadeau joining me live now from Rome, a rainy Rome. All right. So, what is this tourist charge all about? What's it going to help supplement paid for? And what do the local residents think about it?
BARBIE LATZA NADEAU, CNN REPORTER: Yeah. I mean, this really isn't about the money. It's a little bit more about trying to control the flow of traffic. This entrance fee, this tourism tax, will be in effect for 29 days during the summer months. Today is a national holiday, Liberation Day here, and May 1 is a national holiday. And so, they're trying to integrate this or introduce it, let's say, during this very heavy time when people go to Venice. Now, Venice gets about 20 million people a year, and about two thirds of them don't spend the night there. And so, this tax is only for the people who do not spend the night. This is just for the day trippers.
What you have to do essentially is to make your reservation online, and you get a QR code. And when you get into Venice, when you get to one of these control gates, you show the QR code. But, we were told, of the 107,000 who have registered so far to enter Venice today, only one in 10 have to pay because of course there are exemptions. If you were born in Venice, you will be free for life. If you have a house in Venice, if you live there, if you work there, if you're staying in a hotel, you don't have to pay. But, those two thirds of all the people who come to Venice, who stay in another city, who stay on a cruise ship, they will have to pay this five Euro.
And the Mayor of Venice was telling us a couple of weeks ago that the purpose of this is to maybe deter people. People come to Venice seven days a week, but people tend to come on the weekend. And so, you only have to pay this tax during this heavy period of time, from April 25 to May 1, and then every weekend through the summer. So, there may be a family of four who don't want to spend an extra $20 -- 20 Euro. Maybe they'll decide we will go on a Monday, and that will sort of spread out the tourism. That's the idea. But, it's still very experimental. And they said they didn't have any glitches, the website, the apps, the QR codes all worked so far today. It's only an effect from 8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m. on the days, these 29 days so far this year that this tax is in effect. Fredricka.
WHITFIELD: Wow. OK. Very fascinating. Something to get used to if you have plans to go to Venice as a visitor.
[08:45:00]
All right. Barbie Nadeau in Rome, thank you so much.
All right. Coming up, from flight attendant to CEO, we will talk to the woman taking on the top job at Japan Airlines. Stay with us.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
WHITFIELD: Japan Airlines' new President and CEO has achieved a rare feat in her country. Mitsuko Tottori is the first woman and former flight attendant to climb to the top job. She assumes the role amid the fallout from various safety incidents within the aviation industry.
CNN's Hanako Montgomery has more.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
HANAKO MONTGOMERY, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): An entire plane swallowed by flames, smoke and fear filled the cabin. These are the dramatic scenes from Japan that unfolded on screens across the world when a Japan Airlines flight collided with a Coast Guard aircraft on the runway. But, mass tragedy was avoided that January night. Five Coast Guard crew members were killed, but all 379 aboard commercial flight 516 escaped unscathed. A miracle, Mitsuko Tottori, Japan Airlines' incoming president attributes to passenger cooperation and a well-trained crew.
MITSUKO TOTTORI, JAPAN AIRLINES CEO (Interpreted): We are constantly updating our operations based on the lessons we have learned from past case studies. I think we were able to put these lessons to the test.
MONTGOMERY (voice-over): But, Tottori, safety isn't just a priority. It's instinct. Starting as a flight attendant, she rose through the ranks in a country where women hold less than 13 percent of senior and leadership roles, the lowest among G7 nations, according to the World Economic Forum. She is now the first woman and former flight attendant to become JAL's president. But, her eyes, she says, shouldn't come as a surprise.
TOTTORI (Interpreted): I hope that Japan will soon become a place where people are not surprised when a woman becomes a president.
MONTGOMERY (voice-over): Tottori's remarkable career began in 1985, just four months before the deadliest single aircraft accident in aviation history. JAL Flight 123 crashed and killed 520 people on board, leaving just for survivors, and Tottori with the haunting reminder that safety is irreplaceable.
TOTTORI (Interpreted): Safety must be a priority for everyone working at JAL. That important value has been engraved in my heart.
MONTGOMERY (voice-over): But, her dedication to safety faces another critical test. Boeing, long a JAL partner, now grapples with mounting allegations of neglecting aircraft safety and quality, following alarming plane incidents, and this month, Senate whistleblower hearing
[08:50:00]
MONTGOMERY: Are you concerned at all about the whistleblower complaints regarding the gaps in quality and safety of Boeing airplanes?
TOTTORI (Interpreted): Well, it seems that the CEO has just changed. So, I'm not particularly concerned. I believe they will overcome this, and I will continue to support, communicate with them.
MONTGOMERY (voice-over): Her faith in Boeing strong, but the manufacturer must prove that its aircrafts live up to her indispensable value.
Hanako Montgomery, CNN, Tokyo.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
WHITFIELD: All right. Still to come, a former Trump Tower doorman gets $30,000. We'll tell you more about the first catch and kill operation that paved the way for others. Stay with us.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
WHITFIELD: Former President Donald Trump has just arrived at the Manhattan courthouse for the 9:30 a.m. start of the criminal hush money trial. You're seeing the motorcade there moments ago, arriving. We're also keeping a close watch on Washington, the U.S. Supreme Court there. It's an hour away from hearing arguments about Donald Trump's claim that he is immune from prosecution for anything he did while President. And in about half an hour, Trump's hush money trial will resume in New York. Publishing executive David Pecker will be back on the stand. The National Enquirer's catch and kill operations are central to the case against Donald Trump.
CNN's Randi Kaye has more on the first deal that paved the way for the others.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
RANDI KAYE, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): About a year before the 2016 election, former Trump Tower doorman Dino Sajudin suddenly got $30,000 richer. The National Enquirer bought exclusive rights to a fake story he was peddling about a so-called love-child, fathered out of wedlock by Donald Trump with his housekeeper.
RONAN FARROW, AUTHOR, "CATCH AND KILL: LIES, SPIES, AND A CONSPIRACY TO PROTECT PREDATORS": There was a pattern. That first $30,000 was paid to a Trump Tower doorman to squash a rumor that Trump had fathered a child with an employee.
KAYE (voice-over): This was the first time, according to prosecutors, that the head of American Media Inc., David Pecker, who published the National Enquirer, had ever paid anyone for information about Donald Trump. For his part, Trump has always denied having the child in question. This is a copy of the signed source agreement between the doorman and David Pecker, who at the time was a Trump loyalist. The agreement reads, "Source shall provide AMI with information regarding Donald Trump's illegitimate child."
KAYE: According to the statement of facts filed by prosecutors when Trump was indicted in the Stormy Daniels hush money case, Pecker learned in the fall of 2015 that the doorman was trying to sell information regarding a child that Trump had allegedly fathered out of wedlock. At Pecker's direction, the prosecutor said, AMI negotiated and signed an agreement to pay the doorman $30,000 for exclusive rights to this story, not to publish it, but to bury it.
KAYE (voice-over): The doorman story about the so-called love-child turned out to be false, just a rumor. In fact, the still unnamed woman at the center of it denied it all to the AP in 2018, saying this is all fake. Ronan Farrow also wrote in a New Yorker piece that the housekeeper's father said the doorman's claim was completely false and ridiculous. After those reports in April 2018, and after he'd been freed from his agreement with AMI, the doorman gave a statement to CNN.
[08:55:00]
He stood by his story despite the fact there was no evidence to prove it. "I can confirm that I was instructed not to criticize President Trump's former housekeeper due to a prior relationship she had with President Trump, which produced a child."
According to court documents, when AMI realized the claim was false and wanted to release the doorman from his agreement with them, Trump's then lawyer-turned-fixer Michael Cohen told Pecker not to release the doorman until after the presidential election. The agreement the doorman had made with AMI in 2015 also stated that if he shared his story anywhere else, he'd be forced to pay a $1 million penalty. In 2019, after he'd been released from the deal, the doorman self-published a book, writing in the description, "I was the Trump doorman. Back then, I wasn't able to fully give my side of the story."
Randi Kaye, CNN, New York.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
WHITFIELD: All right. Thank you everyone for joining me here in the CNN Newsroom. I am Fredricka Whitfield. Up next, CNN's special coverage of two major Donald Trump legal cases with CNN' Jim Sciutto in Washington and Omar Jimenez in New York.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[09:00:00]
