Return to Transcripts main page

CNN This Morning

Today: Trump Gag Order Hearing In Hush Money Trial; Trump Backs Speaker Johnson After Foreign Aid Vote; Murray's Buzzer-Beater Lifts Nuggets Past Lakers. Aired 5:30-6a ET

Aired April 23, 2024 - 05:30   ET

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

[05:30:00]

KASIE HUNT, CNN ANCHOR: All right, a live look at New Orleans, Louisiana on this Tuesday morning because why not? Good morning to you. Thanks for being up with us. I'm Kasie Hunt.

In just a few hours, a hearing to determine whether Donald Trump violated his gag order is going to kick off Trump's day in court. Prosecutors claim that he violated the order at least 10 times on social media and in articles posted on his campaign website. The gag order is supposed to stop Trump from talking about witnesses in the case.

But the former president couldn't resist attacking his former fixer, Michael Cohen, after court adjourned yesterday.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DONALD TRUMP, (R) PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: And when are they going to look at all the lies that Cohen did in the last trial? He got caught lying in the last trial. So he got caught lying -- pure lying -- and when are they going to look at that?

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HUNT: OK. The prosecution has asked the judge to fine Trump for each alleged violation.

Joining me now, CNN legal analyst, Joey Jackson. Joey, good morning to you.

I really -- I'm interested to know how you think the judge is going to handle this today. I mean, what are the options on the table? And what are the differences between -- you know, there are a number of instances where Trump did this. I mean, we obviously know he was -- he had gone after the judge's family. You saw him there go after Michael Cohen directly.

He is, of course, making the argument while this is political and it's limiting my speech. He's comparing it to the election as well.

Do you think he's going to be held accountable for any of it?

JOEY JACKSON, CNN LEGAL ANALYST (via Webex by Cisco): I hope so, Kasie. Good morning to you.

So this is very significant and it certainly is a challenge for the judge and I think the judge wants to set the tenor and the tone. The trial just began and I think that the judge will be concerned, rightfully, about the nature of the order, the purpose of the order, and whether Mr. Trump is following it.

Remember, this is just not the judge imposing a gag order, Kasie, because he feels like it and thinks he has the power to do it. This is about the protection and integrity of the process -- but more importantly, about the protection and safety of the participants. Witnesses matter not only because they give relevant information to the case but because of public intimidation.

Look at the climate of the times. And when you have a bully pulpit like Mr. Trump has and people who might be motivated to action, someone can get hurt. And so, I think that it has to be followed.

So what can the judge do? I think the judge can a) admonish Mr. Trump and say listen, I'm going to give you one last opportunity to comply with what the protocols are. You know what my gag order says. You know what you can't do. Don't do it, sir.

The second option would be to go through all of the facts relating to the alleged violations of the gag order, Kasie, and in doing that, to assess fines appropriate to each violation.

The third order of business would be a heavy-handed order but it might be that the judge says you know what, spend a few hours in the back there, all right? Just a few hours so that you can understand the dynamic and the significance of this.

And so I think in the final analysis, the judge wants to balance -- not be overly heavy-handed but really let the former president know that this is not a game. You're running for election -- I get it -- but I have an integrity of the process to protect and people's lives to protect, so just stop.

And so what the judge here does will set the tenor and tone moving forward for how Mr. Trump will react or how he will not.

HUNT: You actually think it's a realistic possibility that the judge might detain Trump for some period of time?

JACKSON: So here's the issue, Kasie. I think ultimately, we get there. Whether we get there is predicated upon today's hearing because of the numerous violations, perhaps not. Perhaps that would be overly heavily-handed at this point. But I think there comes a time that if we're going to accept the notion that everyone is above the law.

The judge is not saying, OK, politically, that would be great for Trump. I'll do that. His supporters will go crazy and say hey, this case compared to the others is not that significant. He is our guy. It'll motivate his base.

The judge is not thinking about Trump's base. The judge is thinking about how do we conduct this trial without someone being injured, harmed, or killed. And if the president is irresponsible with his rhetoric, what is that going to do to the process?

And so I think at some point, the judge has to entertain that as somewhat of a possibility without regard to the political fallout or ramifications, but with exclusive regard to how it is that you protect the process.

HUNT: Fair enough -- interesting.

Joey, what did you make of the opening statements in the beginning of the testimony that we saw play out yesterday? I think I was interested in how the prosecution, in particular, was talking about how this related to the election, partly because the case is around then the coverup around what they did, right, not about the original -- the original actions?

[05:35:00]

JACKSON: Yeah, that's so true. I think what the challenge of the prosecutor is, Kasie, is to really tipper (PH) this and the activities of the fraud to some broader motivation, right? Why was this whole fraudulent scheme with respect to dummy invoices, and reimbursement checks, and false ledgers -- what did that apply to? That, of course, as we know, in and of itself, gets you the misdemeanor. You only flip to the felony when you establish that you engaged in violations of business records for some larger purpose. For some intent to conceal.

And so I think by talking about the coverup but talking about the conspiracy, the prosecutor was trying to get there to the felony by saying the president was involved in election interference. I think we'll hear more about that factually.

Of course, the president -- former president -- for their part, the defense was saying election interference? We were in an election at that time. And as a result -- and this time -- but as a result of that, of course, he's going to have something to say about the election. It's democracy.

And with respect to non-disclosure agreements, they happen every single day. What are we talking about?

What I thought was interesting is him saying well, Trump didn't know anything that was going on. Trump wasn't involved. The only issue with that, of course, is that Trump signed checks from his own account. How that's going to be explained is going to be a challenge, but we're going to see very shortly how they -- the defense team -- will do so.

HUNT: All right, Joey Jackson for us. Joey, love having you. I know you've been working a lot of long days so thanks for being with us this morning. I appreciate it.

JACKSON: Always, Kasie.

HUNT: All right. Donald Trump publicly supporting Mike Johnson as the House Speaker faces more threats from Republican hardliners to fire him, effectively. Johnson is under fire over his $95 billion foreign aid package. He had to rely on Democrats to get it through the House, but he did put it on the floor.

Johnson has been also receiving support from many Republicans like one congressman who says core members of the Freedom Caucus are part of a "high school reality show."

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REP. DERRICK VAN ORDEN (R-WI): Matt Gaetz is a bully. Chip Roy is a bully. Bob Good is a bully. And the only way to stop a bully is to push back hard. The vast majority of the majority is sick and tired of these high school antics. It's time for these people to start trying to legislate and stop trying to be popular.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HUNT: All right, joining me now, D.C. correspondent for The Nevada Independent, Gabby Birenbaum. Gabby, good morning to you. Thank you for being here.

Some Capitol Hill fashion right there from Congressman Van Orden.

GABBY BIRENBAUM, D.C. CORRESPONDENT, THE NEVADA INDEPENDENT: Great (INAUDIBLE).

HUNT: But let's talk about what he had to say there. I know you were up on the Hill all weekend kind of covering this. There does seem to be this revolt of the moderates that has been playing out. That said, they may not be able to stop the Freedom Caucus from ultimately trying to oust Mike Johnson.

How do you see Trump's support for Johnson playing into this, and what's next for him?

BIRENBAUM: Yeah. I mean, I think what's interesting is the opponents of Speaker Johnson are sort of beyond Trump at this point, right? They've gone out ahead of him.

People like Bob Good, the chairman of the Freedom Caucus -- he hasn't declared his support yet for the motion to vacate but that's someone who didn't even support Trump, right, in the presidential primary who some allies are trying to take down in his own congressional primary.

And so, I think you see that whether or not Trump supports Speaker Johnson -- and we've seen he does. He understands how narrow the majority is and they can't get everything they want. They can't get most things they want based on how the members of the far right are acting. I think Trump's support to them is not the most important point. I think they're apoplectic over what Johnson did here.

HUNT: What do you think Marjorie Taylor Greene does next?

BIRENBAUM: I mean, that's the question of the day, right? The question of the week. She has said she wants to sort of take this recess week and let members hear about it from their constituents. She's been doing all types of -- all types of media hits talking about how upset she is.

I think the calculus -- and right now, right, they have three people who say they would support the motion to vacate. That's enough if Democrats don't step in. I think there's plenty of reason to believe Democrats might step in given that they are -- Speaker Johnson just did them a solid with the Ukraine aid. Did exactly what they've been calling for him to do.

But I think for some members of the right, even though they might be upset over what Johnson did, they have to make the political calculus of if we now depose Johnson -- if we take down a second speaker, who are we going to end up with? And I think there is some fear that it might be a Steve Scalise or a Tom Emmer, who are members of the leadership team -- who were members of McCarthy's leadership team who they still have that distrust for.

And that I think there is some recognition among some members that Mike Johnson might be the most conservative member they're able to get who is working with, at this point, a one-seat majority. And there are things that are just infusible.

HUNT: Yeah. I mean, it's -- well, I'll save the cliches, but there are -- I have real questions about what they think they're getting instead --

BIRENBAUM: Right.

HUNT: -- right? Yeah.

[05:40:00]

So the -- Johnson's move has generated a lot of positive headlines for him. I mean, The Atlantic called -- said --you know, "The Accidental Speaker: What if Mike Johnson is actually good at this?"

BIRENBAUM: Right.

HUNT: What are you hearing on the Hill, and how do you understand how people are thinking about Johnson now? Because, I mean, going into this there were a lot of questions raised about his lack of experience. His seemingly unwillingness to move quickly on this kind of thing. But now, it seems to have shifted.

BIRENBAUM: Yeah. I mean, I think as much as the most outspoken and far-right elements of the Republican conference are upset, I think he also gave himself plenty of respect not just among Democrats, which we mentioned, but amongst some of the more institutionalist, Reagan era, Bush era Republicans that still remain in the conference and who are important people.

Michael McCaul, the chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee. Tom Cole, who is now the chairman of Appropriations. These are sort of longtime institutionalist Republicans who I think have been really pleased to see Johnson step up in this way for Ukraine aid.

I think his own journey on this is fascinating going from this back- bencher who voted against Ukraine assistance at every opportunity to now being the person who put it on the floor and the person who allowed this after it passes the Senate to get to the president's desk.

And so I think the most consequential result of this -- it might be that Marjorie Taylor brings a motion to vacate. But it might also be that this is the move that gained him the respect of the conference that I think, in many ways, found him previously to have been relatively ineffective and indecisive.

HUNT: Seems to have answered the call of history.

BIRENBAUM: Yeah.

HUNT: All right, Gabby Birenbaum. Thank you very much for being with us. I really appreciate it.

BIRENBAUM: Thank you.

HUNT: All right. Coming up next here, Donald Trump's legal strategy. Can his lawyers convince jurors there is nothing wrong with trying to influence an election?

Plus, a miracle comeback by the New York Knicks. That's coming up in the Bleacher Report.

(COMMERCIAL)

[05:45:54]

HUNT: Welcome back.

We are just hours from Donald Trump's hush money trial resuming in New York City. Prosecutors and Trump's attorneys delivered opening statements yesterday and we saw the first witness, former National Enquirer publisher David Pecker called to the stand.

The Manhattan D.A.'s office framed the case as illegal hush money payments to try to influence the 2016 election, while Trump's team denied he had anything to do with the transactions.

The former president aired his grievances following day one both outside the courtroom and on social media.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TRUMP: That jury was picked so fast. Ninety-five percent Democrats. The area is mostly all Democrats. You think of it as a -- just a purely Democrat area. It's a very unfair situation -- that I can tell you.

They take this payment and they call it a legal expense. And you heard it today for the first time. This is what I got indicted on. This is what took me off and takes me off the campaign trail because I should be in Georgia now. I should be in Florida now. I should be in a lot of different places right now campaigning and I'm sitting here. (END VIDEO CLIP)

HUNT: All right. Joining me now to break down day one of the trial, former Trump White House lawyer, Jim Schultz. Mr. Schultz, thank you so much for being here.

JAMES SCHULTZ, CNN LEGAL CONTRIBUTOR, FORMER TRUMP WHITE HOUSE LAWYER: My pleasure.

HUNT: So let me ask you about this gag order question first because that's what we're going to hear at the beginning of the day today. They're going to consider that before the actual trial itself resumes.

The Wall Street Journal has this as their top editorial today and they sort of tease out this question about the differences among the various groups of people that Trump is not supposed to talk about.

And they do point out that the jury pool, in particular, is a group of Americans who are otherwise anonymous and who potentially face significant consequences and changes to their lives if Donald Trump is out there attacking them on a regular basis.

They distinguish that from Michael Cohen who, of course, went to prison and is out there criticizing Donald Trump regularly -- and may raise the question of, like, well, if Cohen's out there doing that, shouldn't Trump be able to also attack Cohen without ruining afoul of the trial?

I'm curious how you think the judge might consider these differences and if you see distinctions.

SCHULTZ: Really hard for the judge to be a referee in this one, right, when you have a witness in the case who is constantly coming after the defendant in the case on Twitter. They're trading barbs. They're going to continue to trade barbs and I don't think there's much the judge can do about it.

The judge can fine former President Trump. He can admonish him. He can do a lot of different things. He can probably even throw him in jail but he's not going to. So where is the teeth? And I don't think there is -- there is a whole lot of teeth here.

Now, I think the judge will go out of his way -- I think that The Wall Street Journal is right -- to protect the jurors in this case. To protect those people that are sitting in that box that have to listen to this day in and day out.

And it's probably not a good idea for the former president to be going after that jury poll at this point because I do think he got a pretty good shake in terms of the demographics and other things that kind of built out that jury. I think he's getting a pretty fair shake there.

HUNT: Do you think he violated the gag order with that clipped we played -- that interview he did where he said well, 95 percent of these people are Democrats? I mean, he is out there talking about them. Should he be barred from doing that? SCHULTZ: I think the judge is going to think so, right?

HUNT: Yeah.

SCHULTZ: I think the judge is going to go by -- go the way of the prosecutors on that one largely because he's mentioning the jury pool. He could be -- you know, the jurors have to go in and out of that courtroom every day. Him saying look, they're 95 percent Democrat, they're not going to be fair -- that isn't a good way to try to sway the jury to go your way at the end of the day, and it's not a good way to get on -- it's a good way to get on the bad side of the judge.

HUNT: Yeah, really interesting.

So, Jim, what did you make of the way the prosecutors laid out their argument and the counterargument from the defense where they said well, this is democracy. Influencing election -- an election is democracy?

[05:50:04]

SCHULTZ: So I think their theory of the case, if you will, is that this -- these payments were made to cover up -- to cover it up to influence the outcome of this election. That seems to be their theory of the case. The problem with that theory is there has to be an underlying crime there. And in -- politicians try to hide their pasts all the time and they don't get charged with crimes for it.

So what are the crimes here? The prosecution is going to say there are tax issues. There are federal campaign finance issues that all went into this -- except that he was never charged with those crimes. So that makes the hurdle that much higher for the prosecutor in that particular instance.

The defense, on the other side, is going to say Donald Trump had nothing to do with the recording of these business records. He may have signed the checks. His name may appear on the checks. But Donald Trump isn't a person who does bookkeeping. So that was someone else's responsibility. He said just go figure it out is what they're probably going to say at trial and that he had no knowledge of these things being recorded and, therefore, he should be acquitted is going to be their argument.

HUNT: So you were obviously part of the -- you've been part of a legal team that was supporting the former president at the time he was President of the United States.

There have been these questions around whether or not he is going to take the stand and testify in his own defense. He, of course, has been out there saying sure, I'll do that. We were talking about this yesterday as -- if someone asks him well, are you man enough to show up and testify then, of course, Donald Trump is going to say yes to that.

But from a legal perspective, is that at all the right or smart thing to do? And kind of take us inside what it's like to try to convince Donald Trump, as a client, to do anything.

SCHULTZ: So I served in the White House Counsel's Office on behalf of the government of the United States. I've never represented the president in his private capacity in any of his legal teams.

HUNT: Sure.

SCHULTZ: That being said, I think we can all, as lawyers, look at this and say it's probably not a good idea for him to testify because what -- they're going to be able to cross-examine him. The bad acts or prior conduct that they're going to use to be able to what we call impeaching his testimony -- which is discrediting his testimony -- could be dangerous for him in the eyes of the jury.

And that's what you had this whole hearing yesterday about where there were -- they're going to allow the -- some of the testimony from the E. Jean Carroll case. They're going to allow the -- well, it's clear early on the judge was going to allow the Billy Bush tape. Not the tape itself -- they can't hear the tape but they can hear the transcript of the tape. And there are certain things that are going to be able to come in an impeachment of his testimony that are going to be bad for him.

And the president always says he wants to testify, right? That's his -- that's what he does time and time again. You know, it's going to be up -- he's going to have to have a real hard look with his lawyers and see how this trial goes and how well they're able to discredit the testimony of the prosecution's witnesses -- namely, Michael Cohen.

HUNT: It all comes back to Michael Cohen.

Jim Schultz, thank you very much --

SCHULTZ: Yeah, it does.

HUNT: -- for joining us this morning. I really appreciate it. I hope you'll come back soon.

SCHULTZ: Thank you.

HUNT: All right, time now for sports.

A wild buzzer-beater caps a 20-point comeback for the defending NBA champion Nuggets over LeBron James and the Lakers.

Carolyn Manno has all the Playoff action in this morning's Bleacher Report. Carolyn, good morning.

CAROLYN MANNO, CNN SPORTS CORRESPONDENT: Kasie, good morning.

Well, if you went to bed early, like many people did and you're probably watching us at this hour, you missed an absolute thriller in a few of these Playoff games, actually. It was a wild night in sports.

The Lakers were in control for most of last night's game two against the Nuggets. They were actually up by 20 in the third quarter. But Denver just kept chipping away and chipping away thanks in large part to Jamal Murray. After missing 13 of his first 16, he had 14 of his 20 points in the fourth quarter, and none of them bigger than a step-back fadeaway jumper over Anthony Davis at the buzzer to give his team the 101-99 win and a 2-0 series lead.

So the Nuggets have won 10 straight games against the Lakers as they head to L.A. for game three on Thursday.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JAMAL MURRAY, GUARD, DENVER NUGGETS: I told my teammates when I was struggling I'm going to look for you all. I'm going to look for you all. And every single one of them told me to keep shooting. I had the ball with two seconds left and I knew once I made a couple the next one should go down as well. I'm thankful enough that it was one of the few that went down for me.

REPORTER: Can you take us through that last play and just what happened and what unfolded? What was -- I don't know if you were screened or what happened in that last play.

ANTHONY DAVIS, CENTER, LOS ANGELES LAKERS: Jamal Murray made a shot.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

MANNO: It's Playoff time.

No shortage of drama in the Sixers-Knicks game at Madison Square Garden. New York was down by five in the final 30 seconds before one of the most incredible comebacks in Playoff history. Jalen Brunson's three-pointer from the corner bouncing on the rim and falling in, cutting it to two. And then Josh Hart would steal it and Tyrese Maxey would get the ball back for the Knicks.

Donte DiVincenzo missing a three for the lead. The Knicks would grab the rebound and eventually get the ball in his hands. And this time he connects to give New York the advantage.

[05:55:10]

They would hold on to win this game 104-101.

But the plot would thicken here. Philly coach Nick Nurse said he was trying to call a timeout before the Sixers inbounded the ball, but says that his request went unanswered by the officials.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

NICK NURSE, HEAD COACH, PHILADELPHIA 76ERS: I called timeout. The referee looked right at me and ignored me. It went into Tyrese. I called timeout again, then the melee started. And yeah -- I mean, I not going to say I'm going to run out onto the floor or do something to make sure and get his attention.

(END VIDEO CLIP) MANNO: Three more games on the schedule tonight. Phoenix and Minnesota getting things started at 7:30 Eastern on our sister channel TNT. The Pacers are in Milwaukee. The Mavericks and the Clippers have the nightcap at 10:00. You can catch that one on TNT, too.

So it was a crazy night in the NHL as well. I mean, the Islanders blew a 3-0 lead and ended up losing in the third period. I couldn't believe it when I woke up this morning. I was trying to keep tabs on everything.

But the Playoffs have been good so far.

HUNT: Never a dull moment.

All right, Carolyn Manno for us. Thank you very much.

Coming up next here, new details about promises of pardons in Donald Trump's classified documents case. Plus, pro-Palestinian protests disrupting classes on college campuses across America.

(COMMERCIAL)