Return to Transcripts main page

Connect the World

Donald Trump Criminal Trial; Interview with Former Federal Prosecutor Shan Wu; Israel-Gaza War Protests at U.S. Colleges; Improper Burials in Gaza; David Pecker and Donald Trump; India Prime Minister Narendra Modi and Upcoming Election; Britain Boosting Defense Spending. Aired 10-11a ET

Aired April 23, 2024 - 10:00:00   ET




ANNOUNCER: This is CNN. More people get their news from CNN than any other news source.

BECKY ANDERSON, CNN ANCHOR: Well, hello, and welcome to our special coverage of Donald Trump's criminal trial. I'm Becky Anderson in Abu Dhabi.

We'll have the very latest on that and the developments on our other top international stories. Those coming up later this hour. First, though, let

me hand you over to Erica Hill, who is outside the courthouse in Manhattan. Erica?

ERICA HILL, CNN NATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Thanks very much, Becky. And a warm welcome to all our viewers joining us both in the United States and around

the world. Our coverage, of course, of this trial continuing. We are now on day six. Inside that courthouse, this historic criminal trial underway.

First order of business on this Tuesday morning is the judge holding a hearing on these alleged violations of the gag order, which he put in

place. That gag order bars the former president from discussing a number of people involved with this case. Basically everybody except for the judge

and the DA. He is not allowed to talk publicly about witnesses, about the jury, about the court staff and their families, about the prosecutors.

And so right now, he's hearing from prosecutors who say they can point to at least ten times they believe the former president has violated that gag

order. They are asking that he be fined $1,000 for each one of those violations. The former president himself has railed against the gag order

multiple times, said he's being silenced. His lawyers are arguing that social media posts, his social media posts don't actually violate the


CNN national correspondent Brynn Gingras here with me outside the courthouse. So, they're going through sort of the nuts and bolts of this

right now, according to our colleagues who are there in the courtroom following it, talking about those specifically, prosecutors saying they

believe that he violated this knowingly and willingly.

BRYNN GINGRAS, CNN NATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Yeah, off the top, though, we're talking about those ten instances. Those happened on his campaign website

or Truth Social. But just before they even got into all these different violations that they allege, they said that his comments yesterday that he

made right outside of this courtroom against one of the, you know, witnesses, Michael Cohen, that they're going to file another order saying

he again violated the gag order.

So, that's the first time we're hearing this argument with what Trump has actually said to the cameras. The rest, as you mentioned, are from social

media posts, and they're going through them, like you said, each by each one explaining why they believe it has been violated. They talk about how

there's a tweet talking about Stormy Daniels, who's of course at the center of this case, and she's going to be a witness in this case. They said he

called her a sleaze bag.

Her and her former attorney, Michael Avenatti, and says this is an example of him attacking their credibility. He talked about the same thing with

Michael Cohen, another major witness, of course, and foe of the former president. And another one that he -- that it seems the prosecution is

really upset about is the one that he retweeted. You talked about this in the last hour, of a Fox News host saying essentially that, you know,

something about the jury and this really --

HILL: That they were liberal activists --


HILL: -- alleging that there were liberal activists who had worked to get themselves onto the jury so that they could try to convict Donald Trump --


HILL: -- was the need of it.

GINGRAS: Thank you for that. And, no, honestly, it sounds like that was the one they're very troubled about because they essentially are saying, here

you are attacking the jury. And then guess what? The next day we have a juror come in and say she doesn't feel comfortable about serving on this

jury. And they lost that juror. So, they're making that direct correlation and essentially saying that, you know, time and time again, this former

president is not obeying this order, and he just doesn't care.

HILL: Right. And they're saying, here's the direct evidence of why this is so problematic because of that juror, as you point out. We also had Monday

morning when we got here to court, we learned that one of the jurors had also raised concerns. She was concerned of all -- about all the media

coverage, spoke with the judge. The judge ultimately said, OK, she's going to stay on the jury, but all of this comes into play.

GINGRAS: Yeah, it does. And -- and -- and I think going forward, they just want it to stop. Right? We don't know if it will. We've seen in the past it

doesn't, but I guess the point that the prosecution, of course, is making here is it needs to because we're talking about now, you know, in the civil

trial, we didn't have a juror, so now we do. There are people's lives at stake here.

And they say the former president really doesn't care what's at stake. So, it looks like, just looking at our feet here, that they are still talking

about these instances, and they haven't yet gotten to some sort of rebuttal from Trump's defense team. But certainly, we expect them to say, you know,

this is the former president trying to, you know, use his free speech --

HILL: Right.

GINGRAS: -- to, you know, against these people who are accusing of things he says he didn't do. So, we'll see.

HILL: Right. Their point is people are attacking me, so I should be able --

GINGRAS: Right. Yes.

HILL: -- to push back. Yes, yes. We'll see how the judge rules in that. Brynn, appreciate it. Thank you.

Also here to discuss, Defense Attorney and former Federal Prosecutor Shan Wu. Shan, always good to have you and your expertise here.


When we look at the way this is playing out, even the fact that we're learning the prosecution is going to file based on those comments that

Donald Trump made to the camera yesterday about Michael Cohen.

A, does it surprise you that they're adding that is what they see as a violation, and B, where do you think the judge is going to land?

SHAN WU, FORMER FEDERAL PROSECUTOR: It does not surprise me, Erica. They have to keep building their case if there's any hope of reining him in and

any hope of giving the judge a good enough record to show this pattern of violations. There are a couple of nuances to the judge's order. This

question of whether if he is quoting someone else, if Trump is quoting someone else or reposting it, and that probably has to get sorted out.

Frankly, I think the judge needs to do away with some of the nuances to his order. I've said this before, adopt more of a Will Smith style. Keep the

whole trial out of your mouth, minus the violence part. I think the judge is going to want to proceed incrementally. Today may be his first

opportunity to really put Trump on notice, to say, look, there's this whole pattern of violations.

You're obviously violating the spirit of my order. Maybe you can argue about the language. I can correct that. Probably hit him with these rather

small fines. Really just making the record. And this will really, I think, serve as the true warning shot to Trump to say, I'm taking this seriously.

You can't affect the integrity of this trial by making these kinds of comments.

And of course, it's not just the integrity of the, let's say, demeanor of Trump in the courtroom or outside the courtroom, but speaking this way also

can intimidate witnesses, can intimidate jurors if they happen to hear of it, even though they're supposed to avoid media because people get the

impression, you know, if he can say these things about witnesses as the trial's going on, if he talks his way about the judge then, you know, what

could he possibly do to us if I'm on the jury, if I'm a witness? And it's a very fearful sort of atmosphere that he actually creates.

HILL: Yeah. And we've -- and we've seen how that plays out over the past number of years, how people have, you know, really feared for their lives.

You know, I keep thinking about the -- the Georgia voter intimidation, for poll workers in Georgia are (ph) counting the ballots.

You know, I want to bring up something that, so we're just learning from inside, which is what we expected, Donald Trump trying to claim if somebody

says something mean or not nice about him, that he can respond. The prosecutor saying he believes he can respond because that attack is

political. Is any attack on Donald Trump a political attack simply because he's a candidate for office and a former president? That seems broad.

WU: Well, I think you could say that the attacks can be construed as political. But that doesn't really affect what he's subject to within the

confines of the courtroom. I mean, it's a First Amendment issue in terms of what people can say. There is a sense that if you're saying something about

politics, it's like a more protected class of speech.

But his argument, Trump's argument is a little bit flawed here. He's saying, well, people are making political attacks on me, so I can say

anything I want to about them. The problem is, he's not on the campaign trail. This isn't a political debate. It's a criminal case. And the people

he's attacking are people involved in the criminal case. So, that really changes it because you are able to be controlled in the context of a

criminal case. He naturally wants to turn everything about the case into a political issue, but it's not. They're separate universes.

HILL: Yeah. It's -- it is fascinating as we watch all of this sort of the back and forth about what's political, what's not. On that front, Shan,

stay with us. But I also want to bring in Lulu Garcia-Navarro, CNN contributor and journalist and podcast host for The New York Times.

Lulu, so good to have you with us today. When we look at that, to Shan's point, when we look at the political language, we have seen Donald Trump

stop every day, as he often does. If he sees a camera, he likes to talk to it.

So, he will talk on the way into and out of court. I found it fascinating this morning that as he was making his way in and stopped at the cameras,

this was the first day that he didn't rail on the trial, didn't complain about a gag order, didn't say that he was being, you know, he couldn't

campaign and he couldn't talk and he was stuck here.

He talks politics, but in a much different way. One day does not a habit make, as we know. But it is fascinating to see that language change on the

day he's going in, Lulu, for this hearing about what he's posting.

LULU GARCIA-NAVARRO, CNN JOURNALIST: Yes. I mean, I think that you're going to see a little bit more of that. One of the things that I've noticed, as

this trial progresses, is that he really is having to grapple with the fact that he is constrained. And so, what you are seeing is this repetitive

image of him coming out. It's the same dim hallway.

He looks exhausted at the end of the day, and you see him complaining and railing and saying basically the same thing over and over, that this is a

witch hunt, that this is a show trial, that this is politically motivated.

And I think, you know, at the end of the day, people are going to start tuning that stuff out. And if he is constrained, if he can't go and

campaign, there is a moment that he has at the beginning and at the end of the trial, when all the cameras are on him and he can hone his political



And I think you're starting to see that shift.

And in terms of seeing that shift, I wonder if we'll see a shift at all in his rhetoric. I would find it surprising if we saw shift, though, in the

rhetoric when he is out on the campaign trail, which he does have three days a week that he can be out there. Yes, has to be in court four days a

week, but there are those other three days. It seems that that is such a well-honed message for him that would be surprising if he actually departed

from, you know, this is a witch hunt. They're after me. This is a shame.

GARCIA-NAVARRO: I mean, I think this is exactly the problem that Trump finds himself in, which is that there is a criminal trial and there is a

political, you know, message that he is also trying to deliver. And those two things are in conflict. On the one hand, you know, he really wants to

portray himself as a victim here. On the other hand, he is subject to the rules in court.

He is subject in that courtroom to what Judge Merchan is trying to, you know, believes is appropriate and fair. There are lawyers that are

litigating this. And so, he can't just say whatever he wants, whenever he wants. And so, this is the thing that I think is ultimately intention for

him, where he really does want to go out and -- and complain and target all the people that he thinks are attacking him.

But on the other hand, he is actually liable for this speech in a court of law right now. And so, he is going to have to be constrained a little bit

in what he's saying. But politically, we're never going to get to that pivot. Right? The pivot that everyone always talks about, that someday

Trump is going to change. I think -- I think that is not going to happen. Those days are over.

HILL: I think by now we should -- we should recognize, Donald Trump has made very clear who he is and how he feels. And I'm with you, Lulu. I am

not expecting a tiger to change their stripes and all of a sudden change the message. I do want to, Shan, bring you back in on this. We're getting a

little bit more detail from court now.

So, prosecutors, you know, are asking for of the ten offending posts, they want them removed from aid (ph) or on social media tour (ph) on his

campaign website (ph). They want them removed. And they also want the court to, quote, remind him incarceration is an option, should it be necessary.

Could be a little tough because we're also dealing with the Secret Service there if he is put behind bars.

And Todd Blanche has just come up to say there was absolutely no willful violation of the gag order. Just bringing everybody up to speed, Shan, when

we look at that, though, the fact that prosecutors are saying, look, I want you to remind the former president that violating this order could, in

fact, lead to time behind bars. Is that realistic that this judge would, in fact, impose that?

WU: I think it is realistic. I'm not in the camp that says it's impossible to ever incarcerate him because of the Secret Service issue. That's just

the logistic. I mean, jails are places that are easy to secure. I don't think that would be a problem. I think the bigger bar is that the judge is

going to be somewhat hesitant about putting him behind bars.

And first of all, the judge is going to be hesitant for anyone. They're just not going to say, oh, you violate the gag order, off to jail you go.

He wants to make sure there's a full record that shows, look, I've tried to warn you. I've tried to fine you, and nothing works, and then you're going

to jail.

So, the judge is going to want a very strong record with a history of these violations before he takes that step. But the Secret Service issue, to me,

is just not that big of an issue. I think there's no reason why he can't be protected in jail, and he's not going to be in there for years over a

contempt violation. I think the judge can do that, but he needs a strong record.

HILL: Shan Wu, Lulu Garcia-Navarro, great to have you both here. Thank you.

Still to come this hour, frustration erupting on college campuses across the U.S. as schools struggle to diffuse tensions over the Israel-Hamas war.

We bring you the very latest after this break.



ANDERSON: Well, it's been 200 days since October 7, when Hamas launched its brutal attacks, killing almost 1,200 Israelis and kidnapping hundreds.

Well, as the Jewish holiday of Passover begins, protesters outside the residence of Benjamin Netanyahu are highlighting the empty seats at the

tables of dozens of families. 133 Israelis are still being held captive inside Gaza. The negotiations to free them described by Qatari mediators

today as in a, quote, state of frustration.

While (ph) meanwhile, civilians in Gaza are enduring great, great suffering. More than 34,000 Palestinians killed in the last 200 days,

mostly women and children. Well, now we are seeing anger and frustration break out at campuses across the United States.



ANDERSON: Well, that was the scene at New York University on Monday. Both students and faculty members were arrested as schools are struggling to

diffuse tension on campuses over the war in Gaza. The protests spilling onto other campuses, as well as the epicenter of the protests, Columbia

University, its president now facing a possible censure amid student arrests. Joining me now from Columbia University in New York is CNN's Omar

Jimenez. Omar, just give us a sense of the feeling on campus today after a spate of arrests that we have seen in the past 24 hours.

OMAR JIMENEZ, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Yeah, we've seen a number of arrests at campuses across the country, really. And even as you mentioned, New York

University, NYU, a little bit further south in Manhattan where I am, they saw students and professors and staff arrested as part of those protests.

Here at Columbia, right now, things are quiet as the only real sign that there are heightened tensions, you can see some of the barricades and

caution tape behind me. This is outside the gates of Columbia.

And so, they're trying to regulate the folks that have been protesting essentially outside of the campus grounds. And that has really been the

contrast here. We've seen a week in total now of students camping out on campus. Those are the videos of encampments that you've seen here. And

they're trying to encourage or push Columbia University to divest from corporations that they say are supporting Israeli genocide and apartheid.

So, that is really the crux of the student protests.

Now, the off-campus protests that have been mixed up in all of this have been ones that have been a lot more antisemitic in nature, a lot more

violent in messaging. So much so that it's actually prompted some of the organizers of the student protest to distance themselves from them, calling

those folks inflammatory and not central to what they are arguing in this case.

Now, because of all of this, the university here in Columbia is now moving all classes, or most of its classes, to a hybrid form through the end of

the semester, which was always scheduled to be on Monday at this point. But of course, it comes as part of their reasoning is that they say safety is

their number one priority.

Now, look, we have a good amount of Jewish students here on campus at Columbia University who have said that they do not feel safe. One rabbi

linked to the university actually sent a message out encouraging Jewish students to stay home on this front end of Passover week. But the campus

Hillel organization disagreed with that, saying that Jewish students should be able to feel safe on campus and that it is not on them to create a safe


That said, we are entering now a full week of these protests that, as you mentioned and as we have seen, have spread not just universities here on

the east coast of the U.S., but all the way to California on the west coast and in between at University of Michigan, to name some as well.


We've seen multiple arrests. We have not seen signs of these protests slowing down. And all of them seem to have been emanating from tensions

that spilled over from the Columbia University president testifying on U.S. Capitol Hill about antisemitism on campus. And from there, we have seen

some of these protests escalate.

Not to mention that at Columbia University, the university sent in police on the early forms of these protests to clear out protesters and that

inflamed tensions as well. So, we're seeing a lot of tensions play out on a number of different fronts, Becky, and we haven't seen any concrete signs

of it slowing down.

ANDERSON: Yes. Yes, Omar, thank you, and apologies viewers, and Omar yourself, for the very distracting light, during your reporting there.

Thank you.

Well, let's turn back to what is happening inside the Gaza enclave and what has been the catalyst for these campus protests. Gaza civil defense workers

have uncovered 310 bodies from a mass grave at a hospital in Khan Yunis in the center of Gaza. CNN's Nada Bashir filed this story earlier, and I have

to warn you, some of the images in her report are graphic.


NADA BASHIR, CNN INTERNATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: For the last 10 days, this mother has returned to Gaza's Nasser Hospital, searching desperately for

the body of her 24-year-old daughter, Kothar (ph). She had been buried at this makeshift gravesite in January. Now, her body is missing.

UNKNOWN (through translator): The Israelis turned the hospital upside down, she says. They dug up all the dead bodies and moved them around.

BASHIR: These are the shrouded corpses of those retrieved from a newly discovered mass grave in Khan Yunis. Nearly 300 bodies have so far been

recovered, according to Gaza's civil defense, but the search is still ongoing.

UNKNOWN (through translator): This is a crime against humanity, doctor an- Maria (ph) says. How could the Israeli occupation forces dig up these graves and mishandle the bodies of our martyrs? In some cases, they even

opened and removed the bodies from their bags, even though their names had been marked on them.

BASHIR: Many of the bodies recovered here were buried by relatives or medics on the hospital's grounds in January as a temporary measure.

Israel's relentless bombardment of the southern city making it too difficult to carry out a traditional burial. Following the IDF's withdrawal

from Khan Yunis, families returned in the hope of finally laying their loved ones to rest, only to find that their bodies had been exhumed by the

Israeli military, according to civil defense officials, and discarded in this nearby mass grave.

UNKNOWN (through translator): I still haven't found my son Khalil's (ph) body, this father says. We had buried him over there, but we can't find him

anymore. We just want to give him a dignified burial.

BASHIR: According to Gaza's civil defense chief, some bodies have been discovered with their hands tied together. An indication, he says, that

these may be the victims of alleged field executions. Though CNN is unable to verify such claims and cannot confirm the causes of death among the

bodies being unearthed. CNN has reached out to the Israeli military for comment without response.

But this would not be the first time graves have been disturbed by the Israeli military. The IDF previously acknowledging that its forces have

exhumed graves in Gaza in order to carry out DNA tests to identify potential hostages. This man points to the palm tree beside which his

brother Ala (ph) had been buried. Two weeks on, and his body has still not been found.

Under international humanitarian law, graves must, in times of war, be respected, properly maintained and marked so they may always be found. But

in Gaza, the Palestinian people have been robbed of their dignity, even in death. Nada Bashir, CNN, London.


ANDERSON: More international news coming up. And we will get you back to New York and Erica Hill outside the courthouse as the trial, the criminal

trial of Donald Trump continues. His attorneys right now defending his social media posts, which prosecutors say violate a gag order issued by the

judge and his historic hush money case.


That hearing underway. Erica Hill with more on that after this.


HILL: Welcome back to CONNECT THE WORLD. I'm Erica Hill. Outside Manhattan Criminal Court, a gag order hearing in Donald Trump's hush money trial is

underway at this hour in that courthouse behind me. That order, of course, was just put in place by the judge. Bars the former president from publicly

discussing most of the people involved in this trial, pretty much everybody except for the judge and the DA.

That means he can't comment on the jury, on the witnesses, on prosecutors, on court staff or their families. Once this hearing wraps up, jurors will

then return to the courtroom, where it'll be a second day of testimony from David Pecker. He, of course, is the first witness for the prosecution, the

former publisher of the National Inquirer.

CNN senior crime and justice reporter Katelyn Polantz joining us now. And Katelyn, you've been keeping a very close watch on what is happening at

this hearing, where the prosecution alleges that multiple times the former president has violated this gag order. Where do things stand?

KATELYN POLANTZ, CNN SENIOR CRIME AND JUSTICE REPORTER: Right now, it seems like the judge is frustrated in his questioning of Donald Trump's

attorneys. He feels like he's not getting answers. He said that explicitly.

But what he's looking at right now, they're talking about posts related to Michael Cohen. Donald Trump over and over again shared posts that called

Michael Cohen a serial perjurer, both on his campaign website and on Truth Social posts. That is something that the judge is grappling with because

witness intimidation is a big deal and one of the things that the gag order is designed to prevent.

But there was another thing. When prosecutors were arguing first, they spoke, and then now Donald Trump's team is speaking to the judge. When the

prosecutors were arguing, it was prosecutor Chris Conroy. And he was calling a very troubling post, something that Donald Trump shared on Truth

Social on April 17 about the jury. They are catching undercover liberal activists lying to the judge in order to get on the Trump jury. He was

quoting Jessie Watters from Fox News.

And the prosecutor said to the judge this morning, this is the sort of statement that has had a direct impact.


Juror 2, after this Fox News report was out and Trump amplified it, was so uncomfortable being on the jury that they withdrew.

And the prosecutor told the judge this morning, the gag order is designed to prevent statements especially like these and fallout like that, where a

juror becomes intimidated and no longer comfortable in serving on this case. We're going to see what Trump's team says in response to that as they

move toward that in these arguments that are ongoing.

But that is a huge issue here. And the prosecutors, Erica, are asking for a $1,000 fine of Donald Trump for every instance of violation here. Ten,

maybe even more, given his comments yesterday about Michael Cohen in the hallway outside the courtroom. But what the prosecutors are asking is a

bigger thing. Hold him in contempt of court and make him care enough not to willfully violate the court's orders.

The judge has a lot of leeway on what he could do here. And we're going to have to see how judge Juan Merchan comes down ultimately in addressing this

and getting Trump out of contempt, getting him back in line if he is found to be in contempt. Erica?

HILL: And I -- and I wonder if this gives us a little bit of a window. We're also just hearing from our colleagues in the courtroom that Todd

Blanche, who is, of course, the lead attorney there on Donald Trump's team, says he's been arguing for some time. They're talking about two systems of


The judge said, Blanche is arguing that because the DA's office and the court aren't taking action for every single violation, so therefore, they

think the gag order's waived, and went on to say, that's just silly. So, maybe perhaps further evidence, as you mentioned, of some of that

frustration, Katelyn?

POLANTZ: Yes, I mean, Blanche is going to be trying to carve out any opportunity he has to defend his client. That's what a defense lawyer does

in court. And so, he's going to be fleshing out things like, well, the DA's office, they weren't bringing this into court every single time he did

something, so it should be waived.

The judge, though, is ultimately really going to have to think hard about what to do with a defendant in this situation. Contempt hearings like this

don't happen that often. Usually, if someone is in violation of a court order, there's a lot of arguments on paper that happen, and then the court

sort of says, puts the fear of God into the defendant, and things correct themselves and they move on.

But this is such an unusual situation with Donald Trump as the former president, with Michael Cohen, that key witness that he was repeatedly

saying things about out there publicly here, too, talking about him over and over and over again, clearly trying to poke him, provoke him, even

potentially. And so, what the judge does here and how he handles it, fascinating case.

HILL: Yes, it certainly is. Katelyn, appreciate it.

Also with me this hour, CNN legal analyst Jennifer Rodgers. She's a former federal prosecutor and now an adjunct professor at New York University's

School of Law. Jen, good to see you this morning. You know, picking up where we just left off with Katelyn, I think I'm asking everybody this

question, but I'm really curious this morning, is there anything in your mind that the judge can do here that really will act as a deterrent for

Donald Trump?

JENNIFER RODGERS, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: Not really, Erica, because he's not going to put Donald Trump in jail now. And that, I think, is the only thing

that would really stop him from doing it going forward. I think what the judge will do, he will impose some fines for some of the incidents, but

he's also, and this is where I really don't envy him. He's got to draw some clearer lines.

You know, there were three components to the gag order: witnesses, court personnel and DA personnel and jurors, and they have different criteria for

when a violation occurs. And I think he's going to have to be clearer about what constitutes a violation in each of these categories. For example, does

reposting count? Or does he have to speak kind of originally? And then what does it mean when you talk about the witnesses to say something that

involves their participation in the case?

And then finally, with Michael Cohen, it's so challenging because no one has control over him. So, Michael Cohen's going to continue to speak. He's

not a cooperating witness, so the prosecutors can't really do anything about him. And is it fair for Michael Cohen to be out there calling Trump a

liar, saying all these things about Trump and Trump being unable to respond?

And if there is some part of the judge that says, well, maybe Michael Cohen's in a different boat because he, of course, is not intimidated, I

don't think, as opposed to some of the other possible witnesses. But how can you carve out a particular witness? So, there are just so many line

drawing instances here that the judge is going to have to think about.

HILL: Right. It'd be interesting to see what happens with Michael Cohen. And I'm also struck by what's happening right now. We're seeing some of

this on the side of -- on the side of the screen.


Todd Blanche is saying, you know, there's a team around Donald Trump, and they find articles, they find things that are interesting that would be

good to post, essentially for his followers and for his audience, which brings up the question of, it's not just about posting someone else's

words, but if somebody else is doing the posting for you, would that still violate the order?

And it seems that the judge is not really buying that one, saying, if there's an active action to repost things, he doesn't buy it. You know,

this doesn't mean your client can just wash their hands of it. If it comes on Donald Trump's personal Truth Social feed, is that essentially him

saying it, whether or not someone else posts it? That's one of the things it looks like they're trying to clarify.

RODGERS: Yes, I mean, that's a pretty easy one, actually. He controls these people. We're not talking about his followers or, you know, people who

support him out in the world, reposting things and saying things on his behalf. If it is on his feed, it means that he or someone who works for him

is posting it.

So, it's pretty easy a line to draw, I think, for the judge to say, if it appears on your feed, you are responsible for it, which means you and your

lawyers have to tell everyone who controls that feed what the parameters are and make sure that they comply with them.

HILL: Yes, and interesting, Jen, we're also just seeing the judge is now saying he wants Trump to say under oath that he believed he wasn't

violating that gag order when he made the posts that are at issue this morning. A lot to get through.

We'll see if we get that ruling before 11 a.m., when of course, David Pecker is expected to be back on the stand. We're going to have to leave it

there for the moment, but there will be much more for us to discuss, that is for sure, Jen. Thank you.

Well, as I noted, after this hearing ends, the jury set to return to the courtroom. That's supposed to happen at 11 a.m. And then testimony will

pick up day two for David Pecker, who is the first witness, of course, in this case. My colleague Tom Foreman now has a look at Donald Trump's

decades' long association with Pecker and David Pecker's dubious history as the former publisher of the National Enquirer.


TOM FOREMAN, CNN CORRESPONDENT: More than just friends from back in the '90s, more than fellow New Yorkers on a quest for power and fame. David

Pecker and Donald Trump were, for decades, a match made in media heaven. So, how did it all come to this?

DONALD TRUMP, FORMER PRESIDENT OF THE UNIETED STATES: I don't think they even paid any money to that tabloid, okay? I don't think we made a payment

to that tabloid. Nobody except for me would be looked at like this. Nobody.

FOREMAN: For a long time, the relationship was good for both men. Trump gave Pecker's National Enquirer access to his fame. The tabloid gave him

headlines. Trump catches Russia's White House spy. Trump must build the wall. Trump takes charge. The paper gave him its first endorsement ever for

president. Trump returned the favor.

TRUMP: I've always said, why didn't the National Enquirer get the Pulitzer Prize for Edwards and O.J. Simpson and all of these things?

FOREMAN: With slashing and burning enthusiasm, Pecker relentlessly posted false stories about political foes while reportedly suppressing

embarrassments for Trump. Like the time first lady Melania appeared to slap his hand away on a foreign trip. But those who studied the two men did not

see an equal relationship.

JEFFREY TOOBIN, LAWYER: Pecker really looked up to Donald Trump still does. And he put his very important magazines to work for Donald Trump's


FOREMAN: Then some big names said Pecker went too far. In 2019, business mogul Jeff Bezos, for example, said Pecker threatened to release

compromising photos of him unless Bezos publicly refuted claims that the Inquirer was improperly playing politics. Pecker's lawyers called it


ELKAN ABRAMOWITZ, ATTORNEY, AMI: It absolutely is not extortion and not blackmail.


HILL: Tom Foreman reporting there for us. Just a reminder here, prosecutors say the tabloid exec was acting as a Trump co-conspirator in this hush

money scheme, and they've given him immunity from prosecution. He is testifying under subpoena.

Arthur (ph) -- author, rather, and journalist Ronan Farrow helped to uncover that catch and kill practice at the National Enquirer. And Ronan's

reporting is actually going to be a key piece of evidence at this historic criminal trial. He joined Anderson Cooper Monday night to discuss why David

Pecker was called as that first witness. Here's that.


RONAN FARROW, JOURNALIST, THE NEW YORKER: There's a reason prosecutors are putting him first. He's right at the heart of this scheme. He was the guy

in the position of power at AMI, the parent company of the National Enquirer. And he was present for this meeting that prosecutors have focused

on so much in August 2015, where allegedly this whole scheme was brokered. And --

ANDERSON COOPER, CNN ANCHOR: This was a meeting between him, Michael Cohen, and Donald Trump?

FARROW: That's right, at Trump Tower. And the crux of this was that there was a very explicit agreement made that they talked openly about this being

about how can you, the Enquirer, help during the election? And Pecker saying, well, we can buy up stories.

COOPER: Right.


HILL: We have much more for you ahead this hour. We'll continue to cover the latest developments at this historic trial here in New York City.


But there are a number of major international headlines we're following as well. We're back with those right after this break.


ANDERSON: India's Prime Minister Narendra Modi has been accused of a hate speech after delivering these remarks at an election rally on Sunday.


NARENDRA MODI, INDIA PRIME MINISTER (through translator): When the Congress was in power, they said Muslims have the first right over the nation's

wealth. This means they will collect people's wealth and distribute it to whom? To those who have more children. To the infiltrators. Do you think

your hard-earned money should be given to infiltrators? Would you accept this? This is what the Congress manifesto is saying.


ANDERSON: Well, opposition members have long accused Modi and his party of using divisive rhetoric to boost their brand of Hindu nationalism.

Prominent Muslims are also speaking out, among them journalist Rana Ayyub, who wrote on X, quote, this is not a dog whistle. This is a targeted,

direct, brazen hate speech against a community.

Well, India, of course, is in the midst of its mammoth election, where Prime Minister Narendra Modi expects to secure a third consecutive term. He

enjoys widespread support both from Hindu nationalists and for his handling of the economy. Under his leadership, India has become the world's fastest

growing major economy, pushing the country of 1.4 billion people to near superpower status.

Well, CNN traveled to Modi heartland Uttar Pradesh, to understand his rise to power.



WILL RIPLEY, CNN INTERNATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: We are underneath a giant tent with thousands of people a few hours outside Delhi in Uttar Pradesh,

India's most populous state. I have no idea how many people are here. Easily thousands, if not tens of thousands. And they are all here to see

the man who is standing on that podium right now, Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi.

I'm not exactly sure what compels people to come out to events like this, other than just the pure excitement and spectacle of it. And -- and what

people are saying is that they came out here to show their support, to show their support for a politician that they believe listens to them and

delivers on his promises, promises that he continues to make in the campaign that some have raised concerns about, like a government that

marginalizes Muslims. In fact, it was just recently that Modi, at a rally like this, made some comments, considered highly controversial.


RIPLEY: How many -- how many times have you come to one of these?

UNKNOWN: Fifth time.

RIPLEY: This is your fifth -- your fifth time?

UNKNOWN: Fifth time.


RIPLEY: Why do you keep coming back?

RIPLEY: My Prime Minister, favorite leader in all over world. Do you -- do you know the crowd's going to be very big here?


RIPLEY: Why do you keep coming back?

UNKNOWN: My Prime Minister, favorite leader in all over world.

RIPLEY: Do you know the crowd's going to be very big here?


RIPLEY: Why do so many people want to come?

UNKNOWN: Because they are excited for seeing Narendra Modi. Actually, the main reason is that he is a very nice leader.

RIPLEY: You can tell anybody who's wearing orange, saffron is the official color of the BJP. And some of these are grassroots organizers who've been

really instrumental in Prime Minister Modi's success. The largest democratic exercise in the world. And this is what it looks like at one of

the hundreds of rallies that Modi has held since becoming Prime Minister 10 years ago.

That may be why it seems that the BJP and Prime Minister Modi is an unstoppable behemoth in this election, which is going to go on for six

weeks here in India in seven different phases, including here in India's most populous state of Uttar Pradesh. Will Ripley, CNN.


ANDERSON: Giving every Indian who has the right to vote an opportunity to vote. This is a long election period. You can clearly see the enthusiasm

there. But what about the other contenders? Well, the BJP's opposition in parliament is accusing the Prime Minister Narendra Modi and his party of

going after critics to silence them, as Anna Coren reports.


ANNA COREN, CNN INTERNATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: A late night convoy of vehicles through the streets of India's capital last month set off shock

and anger as Delhi's chief minister in the back seat had just been arrested on charges of corruption. Arvind Kejriwal is the fourth and most senior

leader of the Aam Aadmi Party to be arrested for corruption.

While India's largest opposition party, the Indian National Congress, recently had funds frozen. Both parties claim these actions are politically

motivated, as Modi and his ruling BJP, eyeing a third term in office, try to eliminate all opposition. In a rare show of unity, opposition parties

came together for a rally against what they believe is an undeniable threat to the nation.

RAHUL GANDHI, NATIONAL CONGRESS PARTY LEADER: There's no democracy in India today. The idea that India is the world's largest democracy, it's a lie.

It's a complete lie.

COREN: Earlier this month, AAP Education Minister Atishi claimed she was threatened with arrest unless she joined the BJP. Atishi, do you think that

you will be arrested?

ATISHI MARLENA, EDUCATION MINISTER, AAP: I think it's entirely possible.

COREN: The Oxford educated minister, now effectively running the AAP, says Modi and the BJP have weaponized government agencies such as the

Enforcement Directorate and Tax Department to go after their critics.

MARLENA: So today, these federal agencies are being used to destroy the opposition. And I think this raises very serious questions about free and

fair elections and a level playing field in the country.

COREN: Claims the BJP denies.

JALVEER SHERGILL, SPOKESPERSON, BHARATIYA JANATA PARTY: Does Prime Minister Narendra Modi condone anybody crossing the red line of these (ph) political

decency? Does Prime Minister Narendra Modi tolerate anybody tearing the basic fabric of our Constitution? No. Prime Minister Narendra Modi is very


COREN: Polls suggest Modi and his BJP led coalition will win the general election. But his Hindu nationalist policies and clamp down on civil rights

and freedoms have these voters enraged.

UNKNOWN (through translator): Our democracy is being murdered. India is becoming a dictatorship.

UNKNOWN (through translator): We are here to fight the lies and the false propaganda this government has used to feed the public.

UNKNOWN: Brand (ph) Modi is about the global faith in the Indian economy.

UNKNOWN: With Modi Modi chants.

UNKNOWN: The opposition is completely in tatters.

COREN: Pro government media dominates the airwaves, which means voices like Ravish Kumar, arguably one of India's most prominent journalists, are being

silenced. Having received death threats for his coverage, he resigned after a business tycoon considered close to Modi bought the company he worked

for. Kumar now broadcasts on YouTube, where he's still allowed at the moment to voice his dissent.

RAVISH KUMAR, JOURNALIST (through translator): If a country as big as India has accepted that it can achieve glory without the media, and if it has

accepted that any claim doesn't need to be verified or debated, good luck to them.

COREN: While international leaders embrace Modi and the unrivaled potential of his powerhouse economy, critics say the world needs to wise up to what

is really happening.


ANDERSON: Anna Coren reporting there. Just want to get you some news just into CNN.


Britain boosting its defense spending. Prime Minister Rishi Sunak made that announcement a short time ago on his visit to Poland. Have a listen.


RISHI SUNAK, BRITISH PRIME MINISTER: Today I'm announcing the biggest strengthening of our national defense for a generation. We will increase

defense spending to a new baseline of 2.5 percent of GDP by 2030. That starts today and rises steadily in each and every year. Over the next six

years, we'll invest an additional 75 billion pounds in our defense.


ANDERSON: Well, Mr. Sunak also saying that the UK has to be equipped to meet the challenges of an increasingly dangerous world. Well, that's it for

me this hour with our international stories. Thank you for being with us. After this short break, though, do stay with us. We'll get you back to New

York to check in on what is Donald Trump's historic hush money trial. That is with my colleague Erica. Stay with CNN.


HILL: Thanks for staying with us for this special coverage here on CNN of Donald Trump's historic hush money trial. I'm Erica Hill in lower Manhattan

outside the criminal courthouse. At this moment, we are on a break in this case.

The judge just giving everybody a break until the top of the hour here as he concluded that hearing on whether the former president, in fact,

violated the judge's gag order with some of his recent social media and website posts. And even some comments potentially that he made after

leaving court yesterday. Defense Attorney and former Federal Prosecutor Shan Wu is back with us now.

Shan, it is -- it is pretty remarkable what we're getting in terms of the detail from our colleagues inside court. The judge seems pretty frustrated

at this point, saying that team Trump really hasn't shown them much information here.

And I just want to bring up one moment because I'd love to get your take on this. The judge talking specifically about this one post where Donald Trump

typed up what a right-wing TV host had said about the jury.

And the judge said, this was not a repost, it was something that was said on TV and your client had to type it out. Went on to say he had to use

quotation marks and the shift key. Todd Blanche acknowledged it wasn't a repost. There was some back and forth. And the judge went on to say, you're

losing all credibility with the court. That doesn't seem sound great.

WU: Does not sound great at all. I would say that Blanche really took a drubbing from the court this morning. And not only is it bad on that

particular substantive issue about the gag order, but this is a long trial yet in front of him, and he's not in a good position if he's losing

credibility with the court right now. I think tactically, big mistake to focus on wasn't a retweet or repost.

He really should be trying to get at the point of, look, why can't my client say anything if other people are saying things about him? That'd be

a much simpler way to address it rather than trying to dance around is it a repost? Trying to turn the whole thing into a political speech. That's

problematic. And it's obviously not working. I think it's only going to be a question now, Erica, of exactly what penalty the judge wants to exact.

HILL: Yes. And so, the judge said he is reserving judgment before he called for a break. Didn't say when he would let us know his thinking.


But we do know that the next thing that will happen in that courtroom, just about five, six minutes from now, jury is set to be brought in at 11. David

Pecker will be back on the stand. He, of course, is the first witness. What do you expect out of him today, Shan?

WU: He is a great choice for the first witness. He's less controversial, and he really lays out why this was a structured strategy about this sort

of capture and kill, trying to head off things that could be detrimental for the campaign.

, I think what I would expect today is for there to be further detail about exactly how they were doing that. And what I'm really looking for is any

insights on just how detailed was Trump's understanding of it?

Because certainly, the Trump strategy is to say, look, you know, people may have been paying for things. I didn't really know about it. And I think

what we're really looking for is just what kind of conversations Pecker may have had with Trump. And also very intriguing was this private email, a

separate email that Pecker alluded to yesterday.

He was also asked a lot about particular phone numbers. There's some joking about him being able to remember --

HILL: Yes.

WU: -- the numbers, and that's clearly laying the foundation for who was it that you're talking to? Who were you calling the most frequently? So, all

that is going to be important detail.

HILL: Right. Yes. And we'll be looking to see just who may have emailed him at that private email address that he didn't want his assistant to see.

Shan, appreciate it, as always. Thank you.

Be sure to stay with us. We're going to take a quick break here. I'll be right back, though, at the top of the hour with the very latest on this

historic trial. You're watching CNN.