Return to Transcripts main page

One World with Zain Asher

CNN Follows The Latest Developments In The Trump Hush Money Trial; Chaos Continues To Grip College Campuses Across The U.S. As Pro-Palestinian Protests Grow; Founder Tarana Burke And Actress Ashley Judd, Outraged, After An Appeals Court Overturned The 2020 Sex Crimes Conviction Of Harvey Weinstein. Aired 12-1p ET

Aired April 26, 2024 - 12:00   ET



BIANNA GOLODRYGA, CNN ANCHOR: All right, hello everyone, I'm Bianna Golodryga in New York, where university protests against Israel's war in

Gaza continue and are spreading across the country. I'll have that and the day's top international headlines in just a few moments.

PAULA NEWTON, CNN CORRESPONDENT: And I'm Paula Newton, live from outside the Manhattan courthouse, where Donald Trump's criminal hush money trial is

on-going. This is ONE WORLD. Now, a reminder, we do not know who the second witness in this criminal hush money trial is. That is, that it will be

testifying against Donald Trump, but we could hear from them as soon as today.

Former tabloid publisher David Pecker has been back on the stand undergoing cross-examination. Defense attorneys are trying to undermine the idea that

the alleged scheme to kill negative stories about Trump was a plot to benefit his 2016 presidential campaign. Before heading into court, Trump

once again criticized the judge in this case.


DONALD TRUMP, REPUBLICAN PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: It should be over. The case is over. You heard what was said, and the case should be over. But you

have to make that determination. I think we have a judge who will never allow this case to be over.


NEWTON: Now, meantime, we are still waiting for the judge to rule on whether or not Trump violated his gag order, and that was not from what you

just heard, but from allegations from the prosecution that he had done so, again, previously.

I want to alert you, though, to the left-hand side of your screen. You can see key updates from the trial. There are no cameras, I'll remind you, in

the proceedings, but CNN has several reporters inside the court keeping up to the minute on what is going on inside of there.

You will see everything and hear everything that we see in here on that side panel right there. CNN's Katelyn Polantz joins me now live from

Washington. And you have certainly been following this testimony today. We should say David Pecker remains a very composed witness. He's been at this

now for three hours in terms of the defense cross-examination. What stood out to you in the last few hours?

KATELYN POLANTZ, CNN SENIOR CRIME AND JUSTICE REPORTER: A very important witness that the jury is paying close attention to. But what stood out

today as the defense is trying to get him impeached or have his testimony impeached in some way. That's the legal word that people use whenever

there's a cross-examination. They're trying to find ways to unravel the evidence that David Pecker has testified to.

So, every time he has spoken about how he understood that the catch-and- kill schemes the "National Enquirer" were taking part in, to help Donald Trump in 2016 were because Trump wanted it to protect his campaign. That is

what the defense team is zeroing in on now.

The latest questioning there is that they're talking with David Pecker before the jury about an agreement he made with prosecutors called a Non-

Prosecution Agreement for his company so that they would make admissions in court, not be prosecuted for them. And those admissions would allow him to

testify without being prosecuted.

So, he's immunized as a witness in this circumstance. They're talking to him and making sure he says explicitly to the jury that he never admitted

to any campaign violation in that prosecution agreement that he had where he admitted to other possible things that could have been charged against

him or his company.

So, they're trying to unravel all that testimony tying back to the campaign. They're also trying to put into the context today, Paula, that

checkbook journalism goes on all the time for the "National Enquirer", not just related to Donald Trump and his presidential campaign in 2016.

One of the exchanges to highlight just how common it was, the defense asked, "This relationship you have with President Trump is a mutually

beneficial relationship. You had similar relationships with other people." Pecker said, "I did." Then the defense later this morning asked, "There was

already negative information in the public domain about Ben Carson, a political rival of Donald Trump. And so, you ran it in the National

Enquirer, right?"

Pecker -- "Yes." And then the defense counsel asked him if he would have done it even without a conversation about negative stories about Trump's

opponents, even if he would have ran that without talking about it with Donald Trump.


And David Pecker responded, "Yes," he would.

Newton: Okay, Katelyn Polantz, we'll continue to let you get back to the testimony on-going at this point in time. We now want to get some legal

insights on today's proceedings. We're joined by former Federal Prosecutor Michael Zeldin, host of the podcast, what that -- sorry, "That Said" with

Michael Zeldin.

Good to see you, Michael, and I know it is always something that you utter in court, right? Keep it simple. The prosecution is actually trying to link

this to a financial crime, not the salacious details that we keep hearing about here. I mean, from what you've seen so far, do you think that they're

doing a good job of that? Because even right now, when you listen to what the cross-examination has been about, a lot of this is, if you're a juror,

probably quite tedious and you're wondering where all this leads.

MICHAEL ZELDIN, FORMER FEDERAL PROSECUTOR: Yeah, exactly. I think that there's good lawyers on both sides here. The mantra of the defense is

standard operating procedure, nothing to see here, nothing out of the ordinary. And as to the prosecution, you should therefore have a reasonable

doubt that what they say is true.

The prosecutors say this is a very clear-cut case where, while it may be standard operating procedure, in this case, that standard operating

procedure was done for the ulterior motive of influencing the outcome of a campaign. And you will see shortly, witness Michael Cohen, and you will see

shortly the books and records of the company that confirm it.

So, that's the battle of the mantras, if you will. Prosecution says crime, defense says standard operating procedure, reasonable doubt. But I think,

Paula, that they are both doing a good job. Trump is well-represented here, as so is the state.

NEWTON: In terms of David Pecker, he's been an incredibly composed witness. Again, he's a witness for the prosecution. But do you think that

the defense attorneys here, as you said, are doing a good job so far? Do you think they will be able to render some of his testimony in favor of the

prosecution and really make it quite benign so that it doesn't work against Donald Trump in this case, given what they've already presented?

ZELDIN: I don't think they have achieved that -- yes -- from reading the transcripts and listening on the screen here to the updates, I think that

they have not shaken poor testimony from Pecker that it was his understanding from Trump that they were burying Stormy Daniels' story to

affect the campaign, that this was not done to protect his relationship with Melania Trump or to protect Barron from having to hear negative press

about their dad, but rather this was done specifically in the aftermath of the "Access Hollywood" tape to suppress another bad story so that it would

not negatively impact the Trump campaign.

I don't think they've made headway in moving Pecker off of that story. That's the fundamental point that the prosecutors are trying to get out of

Pecker. The rest of the stuff that Bove the defense attorney, is providing little nitpicks here and saying maybe you have an ulterior motive because

you had a non-prosecution agreement and therefore you're lying, I don't think that's going to resonate. I think they have to continue to chip away

at Michael Cohen when he takes a stand in order to make their case that this was not done with criminal intent.

NEWTON: And talking about Michael Cohen, given the fact that we've not been given the witness list ahead of time, if you were the prosecution now,

would you have some space between this testimony and the testimony of Michael Cohen, especially as some people have mentioned he may be tough in

terms of what his credibility actually is in relation to this case?

ZELDIN: Yeah, and I think lawyers have different opinions about this, but I would now, if there are documents that support what Pecker is saying, I

think I would put on some of the documentary evidence to say, look, Pecker said this, and we have records to support what he said.

So, even if the defense has, you know, caused you to have some reason to pause, let us reflect on the documents that support what Pecker says so as

to undermine any, you know, rational basis to doubt what Pecker is saying, and then get to Cohen a little bit later in the trial.

I don't think I'd want Cohen right after Pecker. But some people will say, let's start, you know, one-two punch and then go further into the case with

the documentary case. I don't like it that way, but these are stylistic differences.

NEWTON: It's stylistic, but it's also strategy, and sometimes it goes to just what you're sensing from the jury, right?


We have heard so many names of celebrities, politicians, other people that David Pecker has brought up in terms of what the defense is trying to

describe as basic operating procedure. We did this with everyone. How much do you think it really could hurt the prosecution here the more this whole

story gets into the weeds? Because it is, as I said, getting into the weeds with a lot of salacious information that even the jurors may have already

heard and heard about for years.

ZELDIN: Right, and so there's always a question when you're a lawyer, when you look at something through your legal eyes and it resonates with you,

will it translate to the lay audience of your jury? And sometimes you think you've made a great point analyzing a particular phrase in a contract or

some such thing, and it's just completely lost to the jury who is looking at this at a big-picture level.

So, I don't think on the big-picture level the defense has done much to damage Pecker's testimony, and that's why I think if I can buttress his

testimony with paper that supports it, I would do that now so I can lock down. Pecker is a reliable witness. He told us clearly that this was done

to impact the campaign and for no other reason. Here are the records that support whatever he has said, and then we'll move on to the next phase of

the case, which is Michael Cohen and his understanding from what Trump had to say.

NEWTON: Michael Zeldin, as we continue to keep up with this trial and what's going on in court, really appreciate your insights. Thanks so much.

We'll check in with you again. Now, we will also have more on Donald Trump's hush money trial straight ahead, but coming up a bit later, we'll

update new details and bring you the legal experts that will break it all down for us. Stay tuned to CNN. We'll have more news when we come back.


Well, chaos continues to grip college campuses across the U.S. as pro- Palestinian protests grow. That is the scene from Emory University in Atlanta where police arrested 28 people on Thursday, including two college

professors. All of this happening at Emory.

A CNN crew witnessed police using a taser on at least one protester who authorities say was resisting arrest. Meantime, the University of Southern

California is canceling its main graduation ceremony over safety concerns after nearly 100 people were arrested on campus.


And at Columbia University in New York, the epicenter of the protests, the school says talks with protesters are ongoing and showing progress. Joining

me from Columbia University is CNN's Polo Sandoval. Polo, talks are ongoing. What is the progress that they're saying that they are making

between the school officials and these protesters?

POLO SANDOVAL, CNN CORRESPONDENT: So, Bianna, publicly, both sides of these on-going conversations that are happening, at this point, we do know

that they're only saying that they have made progress.

However, during the overnight hours, our colleague Abby Washer, who had an opportunity to speak to some of the students, actually camped out there on

the lawn, say that they were informed that what they're getting from the university, or at least being offered by Columbia, simply does not meet

their demands in terms of divestment and amnesty.

Remember, the university is basically calling on them to remove that encampment so it doesn't potentially hamper any of the on-going campus

preparations, especially with only a few weeks away from commencement, which is held there. The group of students also told that as part of these

on-going negotiations that they are talking about the possibility of having the president of the university, Minouche Shafik, potentially release a

statement of sorts that would address the events of last week.

As you remember, they turned to the NYPD, inviting officers onto the campus for assistance in clearing out an encampment, only to have this current one

essentially form once again. So, that gives you a sense of just the dynamics of these on-going negotiations, and this is happening in the

backdrop, obviously, of these increasing concerns of anti-Semitic rhetoric and language in the air, certainly charged.

This is one of the reasons why one of the students that I had an opportunity to speak to that has not been actively involved in any of the

protests on campus did not feel comfortable sharing his name, but did say that he is worried that as he approaches graduation next month, that he

will end his undergraduate studies here with disruption, just like they started in 2020 with the pandemic, obviously on a different scale here.

But again, these negotiations are on-going, just as we have been doing every day. We will be allowed to once again make our way onto campus later

this afternoon, where we hope to get an update from the leaders of this student encampment supporting Palestine. Back to you.

GOLODRYGA: Some pretty grotesque signs behind you, as well. Polo Sandoval, Columbia University, thank you. Well, campus unrest has also spread to

Europe. It's happening right now for the third day in a row. Students at Sciences Po in Paris are out on the street and occupying campus buildings.

There -- it's 6 P.M. right there now, and the protests continue to go strong. Melissa Bell is outside the campus there now. We see that there

continues to be a large and very active crowd. What are you seeing? What are you hearing from them?

MELISSA BELL, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Well, what's changed over the course of the afternoon is that there's been a bigger and bigger police presence,

Bianna, here. You can see behind me, that's the Sciences Po building that's been occupied since yesterday evening. Those students still inside

determined to stay, and that's the crowd that's been outside all-day cheering them on. We got to speak to a couple of students earlier on to ask

them, Bianna, how closely linked this was to what was happening in the U.S.

UNKNOWN: Of course, seeing some friends and comrades doing this in Columbia University and all around the U.S. and now in Australia also

motivated us to continue the fight that we've been doing since October.

UNKNOWN: So, we are inspired by Columbia, Harvard, Yale, UNC, Vanderbilt, all these universities that have mobilized, but our solidarity remains with

the Palestinian people first and foremost.

BELL: Now, the crowd here, all the angrier today, Bianna, because what happened a couple of nights ago is that at another Sciences Po site, this

is one of the most elite schools in France, it was occupied and students were forcibly evacuated. What we just heard from Paris police is that the

order has been given for this building, too, to be evacuated, Bianna.

GOLODRYGA: Melissa Bell reporting outside Sciences Po campus in Paris. Thank you so much and keep us posted. Well, now to the Israel-Hamas war. An

Egyptian delegation is in Israel for talks right now. An Israeli source telling us that the group will continue negotiations over a potential new

framework for a ceasefire and hostage deal.

Meanwhile, U.S. President Joe Biden posted a picture of his meeting with a four-year-old yesterday, released during a hostage deal back in November.

Both parents of Abigail Aidan were killed in the October 7th attacks. The President says the toddler is recovering from unspeakable trauma. CNN's

Jeremy Diamond joins us now live from Jerusalem with the latest developments on these hostage negotiations.

Jeremy, we saw the President there releasing the photo with a four-year-old Abigail earlier this week. We saw the video released by Hamas of Hersh

Goldberg Polin, the first signs of life that we've seen of him obviously putting more pressure on Hamas.


Now, the U.S., along with 17 other countries, demanding the release of these hostages. What's the latest in terms of these negotiations in Egypt?

JEREMY DIAMOND, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Well, there does appear to be at least some early optimism beginning to spread here, and that is mainly because of

the fact that we know over the course of the last couple of weeks, talks have really been quite deadlocked, but there appears to be a new effort

being led by the Egyptian government to try and re-inject some new life into these negotiations, to try and reach a ceasefire, as well as the

release of these hostages.

An Egyptian delegation, I'm told, is actually in Israel today, a working- level delegation trying to work through the details to get to a new framework that can then be presented to Hamas, as well as Hamas' leader

Yahya Sinwar, who is in Gaza, to see if something can indeed be achieved here.

And what's really important to understand is that hanging over all of this is, of course, a potential ground offensive -- an Israeli ground offensive

into Rafah, and that does appear to be putting some new pressure on these negotiations and leading Egypt, which has been particularly concerned about

the possibility of an Israeli ground offensive in Rafah, to try and push for a new deal here.

They're concerned, of course, in part because there is this fear that if the Israeli military moves into Rafah, you could see an enormous exodus of

people flowing across the border into Egypt, something that Israeli officials have said will not happen, but a very real fear nonetheless.

We actually just heard from Jake Sullivan, the national security advisor in the United States, who said that he believes that there is, quote, a

renewed effort involving Qatar and Egypt, as well as Israel, to find a way, saying that things are no longer as hopeless as they seem to have been last


A senior administration official separately also told my colleague Alex Marquardt that there are some indications of an avenue to broker a deal.

Of course, we know that these two sides are still very far apart on some of the key issues, including the fact that Hamas is really insisting that

these negotiations lead to an end to the war, lead to the full withdrawal of Israeli troops from Gaza, something that Israeli officials have rejected

up until now. But we will see if this latest effort can perhaps lead somewhere.

But I do think that we'll be finding out over the course of the next week whether or not that effort works or not. And if it doesn't work, I do think

that a ground offensive in Rafah is probably quite imminent here.

GOLODRYGA: Yeah, there are reports that the IDF says that they have a plan for that ground offensive into Rafah. Obviously, hanging over all of this,

Jeremy, has been the U.S. really pressuring Israel not to go into Rafah unless they had a concrete plan on what they would do to marginalize any

impact on civilians there. Any indication that whatever that plan that the IDF says that they have greenlit and have, has that been shared with their

American counterparts?

DIAMOND: We don't know at this point. And U.S. officials have not shared any details that they might know about how this Rafah offensive will

actually take place. What they have said is that Israel certainly has stepped up its efforts to get more humanitarian aid into Gaza over the

course of the last few weeks.

And if you think about what a ground offensive in Rafah will actually mean, it actually is an indication that this is part of the prelude to that

ground offensive, because a ground offensive into Rafah would likely enormously disrupt the flow of humanitarian aid from Egypt into Gaza via

that Rafah border crossing.

That border crossing might very well be closed if a ground offensive actually moves forward. And so, the Israelis know that they need to ensure

that there are other avenues for humanitarian aid to get in, including directly into northern Gaza. There is that port that is currently being

constructed by the U.S. military to get as many as 150 trucks of humanitarian aid per day via that maritime route.

And beyond that, we know that the Israeli military has begun to call up a couple of reserve brigades, taking one of its key brigades that has been

guarding that central part of the Gaza Strip, the Netzarim corridor that separates northern Gaza from the rest of the Gaza Strip. They've taken them

out for rest and for training.

All of these are kind of preludes, indications that an Israeli ground offensive is the likely next step here. What I can't tell you at this

point, Bianna, is are we a matter of days away? Are we weeks away from that ground offensive? That is still very much an unknown at this point.

GOLODRYGA: Yeah, for a few weeks now, Prime Minister Netanyahu says that there is a date. He just hasn't revealed what that date is. Jeremy Diamond,

thank you. Well, America's top diplomat says that he's seen evidence of China attempting to influence the upcoming U.S. elections.

Antony Blinken made the comments to our Kylie Atwood in an exclusive interview earlier in Beijing. Now, it came at the close of his three-day

trip to China, which included a crucial meeting between Blinken and China's President Xi Jinping.


CNN's Kylie Atwood asked the Secretary of State about the wave of pro- Palestinian protests as well that have been sweeping across U.S. college campuses.


KYLIE ATWOOD, CNN U.S. SECURITY CORRESPONDENT: When we look at these protesters, you said earlier that protests in the United States are a

hallmark of democracy. But will these protests at all impact the policy of the Biden administration?

ANTONY BLINKEN, U.S. SECRETARY OF STATE: You know, in our democracy, too, of course, we listen to the American people. And we're supposed to both

represent them and reflect their views. So, we take all of this into account. But again, it's important that --

ATWOOD: So, you might consider stopping shipping weapons to Israel because that's what they're calling for?

BLINKEN: No, we're focused on what -- what's in the interest of the United States. How do we best reflect both our interests and our values in our

foreign policy across the board, whether that's with Israel or anyone else?


GOLODRYGA: Blinken also addressed a key Washington concern, and that is Beijing's support for Russia. He says Russia would struggle to sustain its

assault on Ukraine without China's support. All right. Still to come for us, we'll get reaction after an appeals court overturns Harvey Weinstein's

2020 rape conviction. What the founder of the MeToo movement is now saying in response. Details ahead.




NEWTON: So, the strategy now that we're into cross-examination is pretty simple. All Donald Trump's defense attorneys are trying to poke holes in

the testimony of David Pecker. Pecker, you'll remember, is the former publisher of the "National Enquire" and the first witness right now in the

hush money trial of Donald Trump.

Now, Trump's attorneys, Emile Bove has been asking Pecker about the deal he allegedly made with Playboy playmate Karen McDougal. She reportedly had an

affair with Trump and the "National Enquirer" bought the story to keep it under wraps. It's a process called catch and kill.

We want to bring in our Katelyn Polantz, who's been following all of this for us. And we should say, in fact, that apparently the cross-examination

is over for now. And right now, we have the prosecution again speaking to David Pecker, apparently trying to clarify some issues.

Katelyn, I want you, though, now to take us through, perhaps give us a 35,000 feet of what's gone on. David Pecker's been on the stand for several

days here. He's been a calm, cool, collected witness. But what have you observed?

POLANTZ: Witness one is almost done, and he has established for the prosecution before the jury much of the arc here, the scheme of Donald

Trump, his personal attorney, Michael Cohen, who was often working and helping the campaign, according to David Pecker, that they were all

interested in burying negative stories, especially about women, because at that time in the 2016 election, the "Access Hollywood" tape had come out.

It was quite damaging or perceived to be quite damaging to Donald Trump and his campaign, his draw toward female voters. And then there were women and

others coming forward to the "National Enquirer", specifically trying to sell their stories about alleged affairs, or in one case, unconfirmed and

denied illegitimate children.

Those stories, Donald Trump and his personal attorney, Michael Cohen, were aware of, and they were talking with David Pecker about. At the time,

Pecker's publication bought those stories and buried them. The doorman story, Karen McDougal's story, she was a model who alleged an affair of a

year. And then Stormy Daniels approached the "National Enquirer". They didn't buy that story, and it was ultimately bought by Michael Cohen and


But one of the overarching things here was captured in an exchange yesterday, Paula, as we're waiting for David Pecker to wrap up his

testimony. The defense asked him, why did AMI make this purchase of Karen McDougal's story? Or I'm sorry, this may be the prosecutors. This is one of

the exchanges. Why did AMI make this purchase of Karen McDougal's story? David Pecker said, "We purchased the story so it wouldn't be published by

any other organization."

The question then, "And why did you not want it to be published by any other organization? And his answer, we didn't want the story to embarrass

Mr. Trump or embarrass or hurt the campaign. When you say we, who is we? David Pecker answered, "Myself and Michael Cohen." So, there are the major

points here.

It's a falsification of business records case. But the prosecution is claiming this is about illegal campaign contributions that the "National

Enquirer" and Michael Cohen were making, that Donald Trump was paying for. And Michael Cohen was doing work on behalf of Donald Trump as a political

candidate, not as a legal client of his.

NEWTON: Yeah, and we should keep front and center here. The fact that the defense says there was nothing illegal about this, even if they were trying

to make sure that negative stories did not hit the press about Donald Trump. Katelyn Polantz, we'll continue to follow everything going on in the

courtroom for us. Thanks so much.

Right now we want to bring in Shan Wu, a defense attorney and former federal prosecutor, and Jeff Schwartz, a former Florida judge and a law

professor at Thomas Cooley Law School in Tampa. A lot for those students in law school to mull over here. We have had this witness, Mr. Pecker, on the

stand now for several days.

Can you guys give me your impressions here? No real bombshells that I can see so far. And also on cross-examination, I have not seen that David

Pecker, that his testimony has really been taken down in any way by the defense. Shan Wu, we'll start with you.

SHAN WU, DEFENSE ATTORNEY: Well, one thing, not necessarily as evidence bombshell, but I was really sort of struck by that bizarre situation where

he is meeting with those people like James Comey and talking about what their practices are in terms of the checkbook journalism. I thought that

was a very ironic moment to recount.

I also thought that the foundation of the strategy being really geared towards helping the campaign was really critical, because I think that

deprives Trump's defense team of this notion that they were doing this just to preserve his relationship with his wife and was purely personal.


It seems so obvious that it's entirely focused on the campaign. I think that's very good for the prosecution.

Quick take on, excuse me, quick take on cross, I don't really think they're making much headway there. The attorney cross-examining him, Bo, is really

trying to focus on very, I would call, minutiae detail, and that's not really making a dent in Pecker's credibility.

And even his attempt to keep on saying this is just standard operating procedure, that doesn't really help if the standard operating procedure in

this context has an intent to violate the federal election laws or the New York state election laws.

Yeah, and it is an important point in terms of what they're trying to tie this to, or they're not trying to tie this to alleged affairs. Many of the

jurors will have already heard those stories. Jeff, what stands out to you, again, as David Pecker is likely wrapping up his time on the stand here?

JEFF SWARTZ, FORMER FLORIDA JUDGE: What I really see in Pecker's testimony is that he has brought together all of the players. He seems to be a

central character in everything that's happening, even more so than, I think, Michael Cohen. Michael Cohen, to me, comes across more as the bag

man. Pecker and the former president seem to be the principals in what has been described as a conspiracy.

Even though it's uncharged, it seems that what the state is trying to prove is that there was this ongoing conspiracy between Pecker and Trump to bury

these stories. That means they can introduce evidence of what would be legal things that were happening. And they're not charged as being illegal,

but they are acts that are what we call overt acts towards the furtherance of the conspiracy.

Therefore, they are admissible as part of the conspiracy, although they are not illegal themselves. The best way to describe this is I give you $5000

to go out and buy a car, and I tell you that Chan and I are going to go out and rob a bank. You go out and buy the car and bring it to us.

You haven't done anything illegal, but you have furthered the conspiracy. Sorry about that, Shan. But you have basically done something that furthers

that conspiracy.

I'm not planning on robbing a bank. But the fact of the matter is that that's an example of people that are involved in a conspiracy who do

something that's legal, but it turns out to be in furtherance of it.

NEWTON: Yeah. And, you know, Shan, I know you're good for it, so you're fine. But in terms of what Jeff says, look, he just put that very simply,

right? When I'm looking at this and someone who has no legal standing whatsoever, I'm not a lawyer, did not study law.

If you're the jury right now, Shan, what do you do to try and again pull on those threads, right, help them piece together exactly what the charge is?

Because a lot of the evidence that we've heard so far, you can say it's immoral. You can say it's wrong. You can say it's salacious. You can say

it's scandalous. But some of what we heard is not illegal.

SHAN WU, DEFENSE ATTORNEY: Right. I think it's very critical. And I think they did a good job in their opening statement, kind of giving the jury the

map for this. And then in closing, they have to tie it up because in between, there's a lot of stuff you can't give them that much context for.

Sometimes you can sneak it in, like your point that it's not illegal. That can be snuck in in the questions because they want to emphasize what's

illegal here is the cover-up. And that's most simply put. And it's a cover- up in a couple of ways.

One, they're not in an accounting manner writing down the right business records. They're trying to make it look like just regular legal work and

trying to bury the fact that there was this agreement to pay people to be silent. That wouldn't have been illegal, but they were trying to cover that

up. So, that is illegal.

And then second of all, the second step of the illegality is why were they trying to cover it up? What's the motivation here? The motivation is to

help the campaign. That's the motivation. And that's the second part of the illegality. So, if they keep the jury just focused on those two things,

that's how they kind of like pull all the threads together for them.

NEWTON: And where to next, Jeff? I mean, if you are right now the prosecution, you don't bring on Michael Cohen next, or do you? We've got

several hours of testimony likely still this afternoon, perhaps from another witness. They've not told us who that's going to be.

SWARTZ: I heard, and I don't know if this was accurate, that Stormy Daniels is somewhere around the courthouse. If that's the case, then what

they want to do is start presenting what everybody's waiting for and that is the conspiracy and or the actions by the president -- to the former

president to buy off Stormy Daniels. I think that you have to allow the jury to soak in the atmosphere around it and the actions of everyone. And

then let Cohen, who is the bag man, say, yeah, I did this because Pecker told me to do this.


I did this because the then president told me to do this. I spoke with Stormy Daniels' lawyer. I delivered the money. I did this. I did that. And

let him tie himself up as being the bag man instead of the driving force in all of this, which is, I think, what the defense would like to do.

NEWTON: Interesting. Shan, I've got 20 seconds. Would you bring on Stormy Daniels next, or would you try to go to something more mundane, maybe talk

about paperwork again?

WU: I think Stormy Daniels could be a good choice to do. I mean, they kind of want to sort of mix and match a little bit, someone who has a lot of

substance, maybe some boring testimony with something more riveting.

Stormy Daniels will be riveting for the jury, and she presents a big problem for the cross. I mean, they have to be very careful of not coming

down on her hard, trying to, like, suggest that there's something wrong with her profession.

She's going to come across very sympathetically, and I think the prosecution wants to really be very gentle, present her as a helpful person

with solid credibility. For the cross, they just have to be really careful because they could easily alienate the jury if they come down too hard on


SWARTZ: Right.

NEWTON: Yeah, such a good point. Now, never was the cliche ever more appropriate. Stay tuned, both of you, if it is Stormy Daniels who is coming

in this courtroom later this afternoon. Again, we are not given the list, but we'll let you know as soon as we find out. Thank you to both of you.

And I'll be back in a few minutes with more, of course, outside the courtroom. But first, a quick break, and then to my colleague, Bianna

Golodryga, who has more news for you. Stand by.


GOLODRYGA: MeToo founder Tarana Burke and actress Ashley Judd are among those expressing outrage after an Appeals Court overturned the 2020 sex

crimes conviction of Harvey Weinstein. The New York Court of Appeals ruling on Thursday comes four years after the disgraced Hollywood producer was

found guilty and sentenced to 23 years in prison.


ASHLEY JUDD, ACTRESS AND ACTIVIST: This is what it's like to be a woman in America, living with male entitlement to our bodies.

TARANA BURKE, FOUNDER THE METOO MOVEMENT: We are devastated for the survivors who are connected to this case, and the survivors who have found

some solace and catharsis in the original verdict around Harvey Weinstein.


GOLODRYGA : The Appeals Court ordered a new trial, stating that testimony of prior bad acts witnesses should not have been allowed in the previous



The Manhattan District Attorney's Office says that it plans to retry Weinstein's case. Weinstein, meantime, has always maintained his innocence.

CNN's Jean Casarez is following this story from New York. Jean, I mean, listen. Honestly, if we weren't covering the Trump trial, obviously this

would be the top story that we would be covering.

Quite stunning turn of events this week. The Appeals Court in the state of New York calling the judge in the initial trial having committed egregious

errors. Talk to us about this, I guess, technicality in the case, but the fact that it's being retried is quite stunning.

JEN CASAREZ, CNN CORRESPONDENT: And, you know, it's huge. It is a huge decision. And the highest court in the state of New York said there was an

abuse of discretion by the trial judge. That is very, very big. That very rarely happens here. And what I think is so important for everyone to know,

and especially the victims, they did not say that Harvey Weinstein is innocent at all.

What they said was that the judge allowed so much evidence into this case that it took the rights of Harvey Weinstein and could have been any

defendant and ripped them out because a defendant is entitled a right to a fair trial. They have due process rights that they are afforded and they

have the cloak of innocence -- presumption of innocence until a case goes to the jury.

So, number one, the Appellate Court said, because of all of these prior bad act witnesses, and there were four of them. So, you have three accusers

that are actually part of the charges that would go to the jury. And then the judge allowed four more women who very bravely testified what Harvey

Weinstein had done to them -- sexual crimes they alleged. But none of that went to the jury.

Now, that can be appropriate, Brianna, because it is allowed to show a pattern of conduct. There are some other things intent to commit crimes

like this, and the jury can use that. But the court said you had so many witnesses, women taking the stand that suddenly it became guilt. It was

guilt of Harvey Weinstein. And thereby his presumption of innocence was gone by the time it went to the jury.

Number two, talks about how that if Harvey Weinstein had taken the stand in his own defense, the judge had ruled that he'd be questioned on every

single woman that took the stand. And he'd questioned on bullying in the workplace, business deals that he didn't follow through in, allegedly

throwing food at a server. And the judge said, who's going to who's going to step forward as a defendant and testify when you're allowing things that

are not relevant to this case?

And therefore, the jury was not allowed to hear testimony from the defendant because he's not going to testify at this point. And the court

said it could have been important for the jury to hear that testimony from the defense.

Now, I want you to listen to Arthur Aidala. He was a trial attorney in New York. He was also the lead appellate attorney for Harvey Weinstein. He

spoke right after this decision came out. Listen.


ARTHUR AIDALA, APPELATE ATTORNEY FOR HARVEY WEINSTEIN: That the witnesses were there only to make Harvey Weinstein look bad. That's the only reason

why those witnesses were admitted, to show that he's a bad guy. He was tried on his character, not on the evidence.


CASAREZ: And that's what -- that's what the court said. Now, Gloria Allred actually represented probably the main prosecution witness, Mimi Haley. And

there was a conviction in that case. It was criminal sexual act in the first degree, the most egregious conviction that there was.

She spoke out yesterday and she said the decision that it will be. The decision means that it will be more difficult to convict those who

victimize women and prey on them. As a result, fewer prosecutions will be brought against sexual predators and many will escape the justice that they


Bianna, I just got an email from Gloria Allred's office. I want to tell you this. Mimi Haley is going to speak out today. She's going to give a press

conference because yesterday, she said through her attorney, Gloria, that she was going to try to have the strength to testify again if prosecutors

retry this case. But you could tell a little -- a little trepidation there.


CASAREZ: So, we should hear from her later today.

GOLODRYGA: Obviously unexpected. He's currently serving 23-year jail sentence here in New York. We also know that he was sentenced to 16 years

for the same charges in a case in California. His judges are already pouncing on this move this week by the Appellate Court in New York, calling

that case in California and that judge also unfair. Do you see this impacting that decision at all?

CASAREZ: It's a good question. It's going to be a very aggressive appeal. I'll tell you that much in California. But this is New York's highest



So, this is now authority for all New York cases. Not just this one, but any of them of this this propensity. California doesn't have to follow New

York law. They follow California law. But if his attorneys can make this aggressive move to show that he was stripped of fundamental constitutional

rights. We'll see what happens in California. And it's not because of the victim's testimony.


CASAREZ: It's not because of that. It's because of the judge allowing maybe emotions to run rather than the law, because the judge is supposed to

be the neutral arbitrator, right? He has no opinion one way or the other. Follows the law.

GOLODRYGA: Just unimaginable, though, and unfortunate to think that these victims will once again perhaps have to testify in this retrial. Is there

any scenario in which he would be released from New York prison?

CASAREZ: Normally, possibly. But because of that California conviction, no.

GOLODRYGA: Jean Casarez, thank you for following the story for us. We'll be right back with more.


NEWTON: So, the defense has wrapped up its cross-examination of former tabloid executive David Pecker in Donald Trump's criminal hush money trial.

And now, the prosecution is back up for redirection. Now, remember, the defense is trying to portray the alleged scheme to bury negative stories

about Trump as nothing out of the ordinary, in fact, standard operating procedure. It's not clear, although David Pecker may be wrapped up soon,

it's not clear if any more witnesses will testify today.

Now, at some point, hopefully in the next few minutes, we'll be able to break for a lunch break. I'm sure the jurors need it by now. I will say

that David Pecker has been so far a calm and composed witness, and he underscored the fact to the defense and to the court again that he has been

truthful to the best of his recollection. That is it for us this hour. I'll be back in a couple of hours with the latest, of course, from the

courthouse. Bianna, turning it over to you now.

GOLODRYGA: And, Paula, I hope you can squeeze in a lunch break, as well. Thank you. Well, now to this story. One hundred thirteen thousand people

registered to enter Venice, Italy on the first day of the city's new tourist fee. The five-euro admission charge is meant to keep tourists to a

minimum on the busiest days.


CNN's Barbie Nadeau has more.


BARBIE NADEAU, CNN REPORTER: Around 300 people took part in protests against the city of Venice's new entrance fee, which kicked off on

Thursday, the day Italy celebrates its liberation from fascism. All visitors to the city on 29 designated holidays and busy summer weekends

until mid-July will have to reserve their entrance ticket online and show a QR code to attendants at makeshift gates leading into the city.

Those who are staying in hotels or who live in Venice will get in free, while day-trippers and cruise ship passengers will have to pay a five-euro

tourist tax. Around 20 million people visit the city of Venice each year. Two-thirds of them do not spend the night, according to the Venice Tourism

Board. There is no cap on the number of reservations the city will take, but the plan is meant to dissuade people from visiting Venice on the

busiest tourist days.

Those against it say it has turned Venice into an amusement park. Those who support it say it might make people think twice about visiting the city on

peak tourist days. The mayor of Venice says the plan is an experiment and that other cities with high tourism are watching to see if it works. Barbie

Latza Nadeau, CNN, Rome.


GOLODRYGA: Venice is a magical city, though. That does it for this hour of ONE WORLD. I'm Bianna Golodryga. Thanks so much for watching. I'll be back

next with "AMANPOUR."