Return to Transcripts main page

Quest Means Business

Banker Gary Farro On The Stand In Trump Hush Money Trial; USC Cancels Graduation Ceremony Next Month; Demands For Colleges To Divest From Israeli-Linked Firms; Donald Trump Speaks Outside Manhattan Courtroom; Michael Cohen's Former Banker Testifies In Donald Trump Trial; Delta Air Lines Flight Makes Emergency Landing After Boeing 767 Loses Its Evacuation Slide; Tornado Hits Near Lincoln, Nebraska; Ghana Awaits Court Decision On Anti-LGBTQ Bill. Aired 4-5p ET

Aired April 26, 2024 - 16:00:00   ET



PAULA NEWTON, CNN INTERNATIONAL HOST: A banker who worked with Michael Cohen is now on the stand in Donald Trump's hush money trial.

I'm Paula Newton outside the Manhattan courthouse where that testimony is underway.

BIANNA GOLODRYGA, CNN HOST: And I'm Bianna Golodryga in New York. It is Friday, April 26th, welcome to our special coverage.

NEWTON: Now, we are finally seeing new faces on the witness stand today. Banker, Gary Farro, just began his testimony. Now, he worked with Michael

Cohen, Trump's former personal lawyer, you'll remember.

Prosecutors are asking him to go over banking regulations. This, after Trump's former assistant took the stand.

Now, Rhona Graff's testimony was brief, but impactful. She revealed that she saw Stormy Daniels in Trump Tower before his 2016 campaign. Graff

assumed Daniels was there to discuss being cast in Trump's reality show, "The Apprentice."

Graff said she kept contact information for both Daniels and Karen McDougal, the model who also alleges an affair with Donald Trump.

Now, I want to alert everyone on the left-hand side of your screen, you we will see key updates from the trial ongoing at this hour. There are no

cameras allowed in the proceedings, but CNN has reporters inside the courthouse behind me. They're keeping us up-to-date, so just have a look at

that side panel and we will parse everything going on as we see it and hear it.

Zachary Cohen is doing that for us as well in Washington. Now, Zachary, David Pecker, the National -- the former head of "National Enquirer" just

finished his testimony after quite a few days, and yet we moved on to what I just described as impactful testimony from Trump's former assistant.

What did Miss Graff had to say and how is that supposed to contribute to the prosecution's case?


Her testimony was brief, but impact as you said. She really laid out both her role for the Trump Organization. She described herself as somebody who

was sitting outside of Trump's office at Trump Tower for over 30 years. She was somebody who managed his calendar, somebody who managed his contacts

for the Trump Organization, somebody who was really just always around Donald Trump, both in his office, outside of his office, heard and observed

things about Donald Trump while he was at Trump Tower and she confirmed and testified today under subpoena, by the way, she made very clear she did not

want to be there today.

But she confirmed that Donald Trump was working out of Trump Tower in January 2017. That's a key timeframe that prosecutors are trying to

establish that Trump met with David Pecker to discuss these catch and kill transactions.

She was also able to confirm, too, that she as you mentioned, saw -- remember seeing Stormy Daniels, the porn star at the center of this hush

money case at Trump Tower before Donald Trump's presidential campaign.

When questioned by defense attorneys who picked up on this after the prosecution was done, she was asked why she thought that Stormy Daniels was

there and she said that she assumed it was because she was interviewing or applying for a role on "The Apprentice."

She said that -- made very clear that that was her assumption, but still this observation and this testimony about Stormy Daniels being physically

present at Trump Tower before Donald Trump's presidential campaign.

Also, the introduction of calendars, the introduction of e-mails between Graff and Trump's assistant at the White House introduced as evidence. She

was really a vehicle for which prosecutors could introduce this documentary evidence.

NEWTON: Yes, and interesting as well that she detailed the fact that she had contacts for both Stormy Daniels and Karen McDougal, again, two people

that are alleged to have an affair with Donald Trump.

I want to go into the issue of this banker though now on the stand. Again, he doesn't have anything to do with Donald Trump as far as we know, but

with Michael Cohen and again, to remind everyone he was known as the fixer.

This is going materially to any kind of an alleged payoff that Michael Cohen had going on with Stormy Daniels. So why is it significant that they

would actually bring a banker, Michael Cohen's banker to really be on the stand right now?

COHEN: Yes, much like Graff, the banker here is a setup witness of sorts. It is one that establishes the way things worked in terms of these alleged

payments, these transactions. The banker is walking the jury through what they observed about how Michael Cohen interacted both with the bank and in

terms of his setting up of various bank accounts.

He testified that Michael Cohen did set up personal bank accounts, but that no Trump organization accounts were set up while he was working with

Michael Cohen, really just sort of establishing and setting up the context that you would have to assume that Michael Cohen, when he takes the stand

will try to fill in the gaps for, but it is setting the stage, providing the context and the understanding for the jury so that when Michael Cohen

does testify, they know already sort of the broader picture of how this all played out in the system that was used allegedly by Michael Cohen on

Trump's behalf.


NEWTON: Okay. Zachary Cohen, as we continue to watch the testimony here, thank you so much.

Now, the bulk of today's testimony came from former tabloid publisher, David Pecker. Now, he finished up this afternoon after more than 10 hours

on the stand across four days. Prosecutors tried to reestablish his credibility after the defense highlighted what were very small

inconsistencies in Pecker's past statements.

Now, Trump's lawyers also got him to say a few things that they will use for their defense. Pecker said, he didn't use the words "catch and kill"

when he met with Trump and Michael Cohen in 2015. The prosecutors had Pecker explain that he nonetheless agreed to flag negative stories for

Donald Trump.

Now, Pecker said: "I would speak to Michael Cohen and tell him that these are the stories that are going to be for sale, that if we don't buy them,

somebody else will."

Gregory Germain is a law professor at Syracuse University and glad to have you here to help us parse exactly what went on over those four days of

testimony before we get to what is at issue right now.

In terms of David Pecker being on the stand and obviously being a witness for the prosecution, did he do what he needed to do? So beyond all of the

salacious things that we have heard this week, did he do a good job of really having the jury understand what the prosecution is alleging, that

these were financial crimes and closely connected to fraud involving the 2016 campaign?

GREGORY GERMAIN, LAW PROFESSOR, SYRACUSE UNIVERSITY: Well, I don't think really his testimony had much to do with the allegations in the indictment.

The allegations in the indictment didn't relate to the payments that the "National Enquirer's" organization made to these other people had to do

with the Stormy Daniels payment that went through Cohen and other than referring Stormy Daniels to Cohen to handle the case, Pecker really doesn't

add anything to the charges in the indictment.

So, its embarrassing information, I think for Trump that they had this arrangement, but it really isn't what is covered by the indictment.

NEWTON: So Professor, I mean, you're getting to a really interesting point here, especially given what is being entered as evidence. If you're the

jury here, what the defense is trying to say is that look, first off, Donald Trump denies having an affair even if any of that happened, even if

they were trying to cover that up, none of this was illegal. Is that what you're trying to get at? Or is this about the fact that David Pecker did

not pay Stormy Daniels?

He said categorically on the stand, he says to Michael Cohen, "I'm not a bank, I'm not going to have anything to do with this."

GERMAIN: Right. So the allegations, I mean, what needs to be proven in this case by the prosecution is that the entries -- the checks and the entries

reimbursing Michael Cohen were for payments made to Stormy Daniels, which I think the prosecution is going to be able to establish and that that was

disguised as attorney's fees to commit fraud on somebody and they don't tell us who they were designed to commit fraud on.

And that the misrepresentation on the internal reimbursements were to commit an independent crime and we don't know what that independent crime

is. So there has to be proof by the prosecution that there was an intent to commit fraud and an independent crime, and none of that is established in

any way by Pecker who is talking about other transactions that he was involved in including the Karen McDougal payment and the doorman payment

that was made.

So it was very strange that they started with Pecker. I mean, I think its embarrassing information, but it really doesn't relate to the charges in

the indictment.

NEWTON: And so if you're the jury, you've been on a contentious trial now hearing testimony for the better part of an entire week and yet they

haven't gotten to the heart of the matter yet. So if you're the prosecution, how do you pivot now?

GERMAIN: Well, I mean, I think they are clearly starting with the evidence that is related to the indictment. They called Rhona Graff, Trump's, I want

to call her senior secretary or coordinator, and so she is talking about how she was aware of these -- of Stormy Daniels and maybe Stormy Daniels

was once in the office and she is going to be authenticating documents, so they've got to get all of these documents in that are the basis for the



But none of that is really controversial, I don't think so. The jury is probably confused as to what this case is about would be my guess at this


NEWTON: Yes, and again, as you said, this hasn't -- this doesn't have anything to do with Donald Trump's behavior, it has to do with whether or

not he committed any illegal acts and they have to prove what is in the indictment.

Before I let you go, I just want to get your opinion as well in terms of when we saw some cross-examination from Donald Trump's lawyers. They were

really kid gloves on David Pecker. Do you think that is a good posture for them to continue with throughout this trial or do you expect them to get

much more aggressive depending on the witnesses on the stand?

GERMAIN: I am sure they'll get much more aggressive with Michael Cohen and Michael Cohen, I think, the prosecution is worried about Michael Cohen

because he is really their key witness on the allegations in the indictment.

And he has written a book and been out on the lecture circuit blasting Trump, so you know, he is going to be -- I am sure they're going to get

tough with him. Although, the record seem to back up everything he said, so I don't know that they are going to have much luck in impeaching him

because he is likely telling the truth.

So the real issue in this case are the legal issues and legal issues are going to wait till all this evidence is in and the judge has to put

together the jury instructions and the jury instructions are going to be absolutely key to this prosecution and whether they clearly set forth the

elements that the district attorney has to prove is going to be the big issue when we get to the end of the trial.

So, the factual phase, you know, it may be interesting on a day-to-day basis to watch, but it is not the crux of this case. The real disputes in

this case are whether he made these false entries to commit fraud on someone, what was that fraud? And whether it was to hide an independent

crime and what was that independent crime?

And we are not going to get to that until we get to the legal arguments at the end of the trial.

NEWTON: Yes, and spare a thought for this jury because we are weeks away from any kind of jury instructions and lots of evidence and witnesses to


Professor Gregory Germain, thanks so much. Really appreciate it.

GERMAIN: Thank you.

NEWTON: Now, still to come for us, tensions are running high at a top university in Paris. There is a heavy police presence as pro-Palestinian

protesters blockade the campus.



GOLODRYGA: University officials here in the US have been struggling to find a way to ease campus tensions.

University of Southern California has now canceled its main graduation ceremony next month for safety reasons. Nearly 100 people were arrested

there earlier this week.

Ohio State University says 36 demonstrators, including 16 students, were arrested on Thursday after they refused an order to disperse.

And student leaders at Columbia University where the protest movement began say they want a statement of wrongdoing from the administration. They are

furious that New York City Police were called in last week.

Polo Sandoval is at Columbia University in New York. You've been following the story, Polo, for us, for days. Both sides looking as if they are

continuing these negotiations.

What exactly are they negotiating over -- Polo.

POLO SANDOVAL, CNN CORRESPONDENT: And earlier this afternoon, Bianna, we heard from one of those sides the official voice of the students that have

been occupying this patch of land at the heart of Columbia University and we heard from them that these negotiations that have been ongoing since

Friday have reached a stalemate, which is certainly not a positive development here for the students who are trying and to get their voice

heard and their message across, and certainly not good for the university that has been hoping to vacate the space here so they could prepare it for

the upcoming commencement ceremony.

Now, you and I talked about this significant progress that not only the students, but also the university had confirmed that had been -- that they

had been able to move forward with in these negotiations. We asked exactly what that progress was over and they said its at least over investment

disclosures, basically, they understand that they might be able to get little more information from the university about the investments with

companies tied to Israel, which speaks to the issue of divestment.

But also, they've been able to make some progress in terms of that wrong -- that statement from the president of the university, but they wouldn't

exactly elaborate on that.

There is still a lot of uncertainty here, Bianna, because I asked if these negotiations will likely continue into the weekend. One of those two

negotiators at the table told me that they simply don't know at this point. So that speaks to that at uncertainty, but in meantime as for this

encampment, it continues now.

About a week-and-a-half, and I was told by one of the organizers that we can expect, they will be hosting actually a shabbat dinner some of the

Jewish members of this pro-Palestinian movement will be hosting a shabbat dinner here with some of the other attendees.

And finally, an interesting note that I heard from the organizer today is that they don't have any reason to believe that the encampment has actually

grown in its last 10 days or so, so it doesn't seem to get any bigger, but it doesn't seem to we going anywhere.

And so now, there is still perhaps another layer of uncertainty as we find -- as we wait to see what the next step will be for the university, it is

very clear that both sides would like to avoid a scenario just like last week where Columbia reached out to the NYPD to then make their way onto the

campus and clear out one of these encampments only to see it pop up again.

NEWTON: Yes, it is an issue that has drawn visits from politicians from both sides of the aisle, taking two very different views and approaches to

the ongoing drama there.

Polo Sandoval, thank you.

Well, pro-Palestinian protests that began on US college campuses have now gone global. Students in London gathered outside University College London

to protest the school's ties to Israeli academic institutions.

And in Paris, students had been occupying a building at Sciences Po University. It was met with a heavy police presence, but ended peacefully

after administrators agreed to meet with students in the coming days.

Melissa Bell was there and filed this report earlier.


MELISSA BELL, CNN CORRESPONDENT: A student protest here in Central Paris at one of Sciences Po, one of the most prestigious universities in France's

main buildings in Central Paris.

What set this protest off, we are hearing from the students here was a protest that was held on Wednesday in another building and that was

abruptly cleared out by the police.

What the students here said is that the police's intervention is what has galvanized this support for the protest movement today.

But it also a protest movement that is very much in sympathy with what has been happening on American campuses.


UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Seeing some friends and comrades doing this in Columbia University and all around the US and now in Australia also motivated us to

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

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: So we are inspired by Columbia, Harvard, Yale, UNC, Vanderbilt, all of these universities that have mobilized, but our

solidarity remains with the Palestinian people first and foremost.

BELL: Inside the building, they've set up tents, they have been camped out overnight and they intend to stay in there for as long as it takes to

get the attention of their university.

Very similar demand to the ones being seen in the United States: The end of the war in Gaza, but also the end of any cooperation between the academic

institutions and any companies that might be working with Israel.

Melissa Bell, CNN, Paris.


GOLODRYGA: Our thanks to Melissa Bell for that report.

Well, at least one common thread among many of these protests is a call for schools to divest from companies linked to Israel or the war in Gaza.

The specifics vary from college to college. Some students want to pull investments from weapons manufacturers, others like Columbia go even

further. Students there want the school to divest from Google, which has a large contract with the Israeli government.

Universities have mostly refused to give in to these demands and some experts say divestment would have a very limited impact.

Witold Henisz is vice dean of the Wharton School, University of Pennsylvania. He is also the faculty director of its Environmental, Social,

and Governance Initiative and he joins me now.

Professor, thanks so much for taking the time. So, as we should note, the BDS Movement has existed long before October 7th, going back many years and

correct me if I am wrong, but I am not aware of any single school that has gone on to divest from Israel despite the pressure, are you?

WITOLD HENISZ, VICE DEAN, WHARTON SCHOOL, UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA: I am really more of an expert on the historic success or efficacy of

divestments, so I would prefer to keep the comments there if we could.

GOLODRYGA: Okay. Fine. So to that point, as the introduction said to you, there are some experts that say that there is little to no impact from

essentially divesting from these schools. Walk because through your research and does that backup that point?

HENISZ: It does. I think we really have to think about divestment as a two- sided transaction. Someone is selling and someone is buying.

So who are you selling to and who is buying? If you care deeply about an issue and everyone who cares deeply about an issue, whether it be fossil

fuels or a country you're trying to target and you sell the shares to someone who cares less, what are you achieving? What is really happening if

the owners of a company are moving from people who care about a case or an issue to those who don't?

In fact, the outcome can be across purposes to the goals of the divestment movement and that is what we frequently see in the history of such


GOLODRYGA: So I know you want to stick to a very narrow point here, but as we are looking at these protests in this issue specifically comes up

surrounding Israel anytime we do see conflict or fighting intensify in the region, I am just wondering, is this something that you hold classes about?

Do you advise the heads of the school, the people who run the endowments on this issue? Because as our reporters have noted, there appears to be some

negotiation going on with at least some of the heads of these schools and these students who are demanding that the schools divest.

HENISZ: Well, we actually do have a class that I teach looking at the divestment movement with a focus on fossil fuels. And when I start the

class, often about 80 to 90 percent of the students are in favor of the University of Pennsylvania divesting from fossil fuels. And by the end,

they've taken a more nuanced view.

They really recognize the limits of that disengagement or removal of their voice over the direction of the fossil fuel companies and they are in favor

of speaking out about the direction of change, about the climate transition. But doing it through the act of ownership of the shares through

the university endowment, as opposed to selling them to someone who cares less.

GOLODRYGA: Yes, you note that financially, it may not make a significant impact, if any, but that to show moral support or whatever the point they

are trying to make does sometimes have an impact.

HENISZ: Well, I think it is important to separate those two items. So the first question is, does it work? Does it drive change? Does it drive down

the stock price? Does it change corporate behavior? And that is -- the answer to that is no.

The research with the possible exception of the apartheid movement, but even there, there is a great deal of uncertainty and questioning.

The stocks that were targeted in the anti-apartheid movement didn't actually underperform the market. The companies that divested experienced

actually -- when they divested, they experienced some stock market losses. So it doesn't seem to work in terms of the companies you're targeting.

Then the question is, does it make you feel better? Does it make a moral position? Does it build some moral legitimacy for a course of action or

make continued -- continuity of course of action illegitimate?


I think we see some evidence that it can be part of a broader social movement, should it be? If it doesn't have the effect we claim, if it

doesn't actually drive change in the companies, why does it make us feel better?

Why does it make us feel better to disassociate, to give up the right to influence these companies through share ownership. It is a puzzle, I think

that we need to wrestle through. It might make us feel good, but should it really? And I think we need to take the time to ask that question.

GOLODRYGA: In terms of what this applies to, I know you mentioned certain sectors like oil and gas. And then obviously, famously South Africa. Are

there any other countries aside from Israel where your research can give us more insight into the cause and effect of BDS?

HENISZ: Yes, there have been many divestment movements targeting weapons manufacturers, those associated with the Vietnam War targeting fossil fuels

has been very prominent, the coal industry, others. So there is a wide range that we are drawing this research from and looking at the number of

these campaigns and really seeing very little material impact on the companies affected. And again, a transfer of ownership from people who care

about the issue to people who don't care.

Think about the impact in fossil fuels. If everyone who cares about the climate transition sells and the Saudis, the Russians, and the oil

manufacturers buy, what have we accomplished? What is the outcome of that? Is it really in furthering of the climate transition or could it work

across purposes?

I think that is the issue we have to raise, and so whatever the issues you care about, exhibit your voice. Use the voice you have as a share owner to

try to influence change as a share owner, as a customer, as a supplier. Look at the channels you have, don't disengage, which is essentially what

the divestment movement is supporting.

GOLODRYGA: Yes, and perhaps take a class like yours.

Before we let you go, I just want to let our viewers know what they are seeing on the screen there. These are live photos from Denver, Colorado in

the Auraria campus there where there appear to be some demonstrations met with police and arrests are currently underway is what we are being told.

We will continue to cover this and stay on top of this, obviously this is an issue that is impacting campuses across the country, and as we now note,

around the world as well.

Professor Witold Henisz, thank you so much for your time. We appreciate it.

Well, Donald Trump's hush money trial is set to adjourn for the week any minute now after two new witnesses took the stand today, we will go back to

Paula Newton at the courthouse after the break.



GOLODRYGA: Hello, I'm Bianna Golodryga.

Donald Trump's hush money trial has just adjourned for the week. We'll have much more on that in just a moment.

But before that, the headlines this hour. As Israel gears up for a ground offensive in Rafah, in southern Gaza, an Egyptian delegation is in Israel

to coordinate security preparations. It's also trying to help advance stalled negotiations to secure a hostage deal with Hamas that would lead to

a ceasefire.

An unexploded bomb from World War II found near the stadium of the Bundesliga Football Club was set to be -- actually, let's take you live to

Trump (INAUDIBLE) speaking outside the courthouse.

DONALD TRUMP, FORMER PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: This is all a Biden indictment. It's an order to try and win the election political opponent.

And nothing like this has ever happened.

Eight days, as you know, the economy's falling apart now. Now, you're seeing it, very little growth, it's going to get worse. Oil prices are

going up. And you have the college campuses all over closed down, our country's going to hell.

And we sit here day after day after day, which is their plan, because they think they might be able to eke out an election. But I doubt it because the

poll numbers are very good for us.

I just want to say that I've invited Biden to debate, he can do it anytime he wants, including tonight. I'm ready, here we are. I invited him to the

courthouse that he has tied up in his administration. This is all being done for Washington. It's all a well-coordinated attack on a political


But I'm here. I'm ready, willing and able. And if he wants, I'll do it on Monday night, Tuesday night or Wednesday night, we'll be in Michigan State

that he's destroyed because of the auto industry. We're not going to have any jobs left in Michigan. No other jobs left in Michigan. They're all

going over to China and other places with his ridiculous E.V. mandate, electric vehicle mandate.

But we're willing to do it. Monday night, Tuesday night, Wednesday night, Thursday night or Friday night on national television. We're ready. Just

tell me where, I will do it at the White House. That would be very comfortable. Excellent.

But you tell me where but we're ready. He's obviously not showing up now. We heard nothing. But he said today that, oh, I'd love to debate but he

won't debate. I don't think he'll debate, maybe he will. Maybe.

Well, I'm not sure he has the choice. But that's the story. So, here we are. We're ready, willing and able, and we don't see him and I don't think

he'll be here.

But maybe next week, he'll do it. I doubt it. Maybe next week. So, I just want to thank everybody for being here. I know you have to suffer through

this like everybody else.

Nothing has done. This is a case that should have never been brought. Every legal scholar, every legal expert, any McCarthy, Jonathan, Andy, every

single one. Jonathan Turley came out with a scathing report in this trial today.

And in regard to the scathing report, Mark Levin can't believe this is happening in our country. There's no case here. There is no case,

whatsoever. It's a disgrace. We have a conflicted judge and it shouldn't be happening, not in this country.

Thank you very much.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Do you think you could beat Biden in the debate? Where do you think this is going so far?

PAULA NEWTON, CNN ANCHOR: Trump there at the end of quite a week of testimony here in New York. I am now joined by Michael Zeldin, he is a

former federal prosecutor and Zachary Cohen who's been following this trial with us in Washington.

So, Donald Trump there, Zack, turning this into a campaign stop. We're expected that we hear that when he comes out. He's saying that he will

debate President Biden anywhere, anytime.


But putting that to one side, he also again said that the judge was conflicted. A lot going on here. Let's start with what we heard from David

Pecker. And if we could just wrap up kind of what this week looked like when this was the first week of testimony in this Trump top -- in this

Trump trial, Zach.

ZACHARY COHEN, CNN REPORTER: Absolutely, Paula. Donald Trump walking up to that line again, he's -- the gag order that, you know, he allows him to

criticize the judge in the case but does not allow him to attack witnesses. You know, the judges still weighing whether or not he's violated that gag


But again, putting that to the side and the politics of this to the side. We did hear from three more witnesses today in the courtroom that Donald

Trump was sitting in for, you know, the vast majority of the day to day and one of them was David Pecker of the so called tabloid king who described

how this process of catch and kill in relation to Donald Trump and the stories about Donald Trump work. This sort of laying the foundation for

what prosecutors are going to try to make as their case that this catch and kill is ever to suppress the story of Stormy Daniels was intended to

influence the outcome and benefit former President Donald Trump's election campaign in 2016.

And so, that was really what David Pecker as a witness, that was what his sort of -- what his role was for the prosecution today. He talked about his

meetings with Donald Trump, he talked about how it was very clear to him based on his conversations with Donald Trump and with Michael Cohen, that

that the goal of this catch and kill process and the goal of him buying stories and also advising Michael Cohen to buy the story of Stormy Daniels,

in order to keep that from coming out was to help Donald Trump's presidential campaign and that is again the centerpiece of what the

prosecution has to prove here if they want a conviction.

NEWTON: Yes, it is the centerpiece of how this was conducted. But what David Pecker was involved in was not the payment as far as we know to

Stormy Daniels.

Michael Zeldin, now, I want to get to you, because we did in fact, we just left a stand with a banker who was involved with Michael Cohen, who was

involved in trying to help Michael Cohen open up those bank accounts that allegedly provided the payout to Stormy Daniels.

And I want to bring to your attention something that I'm sure you noticed is that this witness is this banker saying when Michael -- when Michael

Cohen opened these accounts, he checked the box no, as to whether or not this had to do with any activity from a political action committee, or

whether this had to do with political fundraising. Why is that significant?

MICHAEL ZELDIN, FORMER FEDERAL PROSECUTOR: Well, because it promotes the notion for the defense that Cohen is a liar. So, he's lied and got

convicted. And he's made up this story about Stormy Daniels and the repayment and the checking of the box is a indicator of his untruthfulness.

That's what the defense has to do with Cohen, they've got to shred his credibility.

Now, the fact that he checked it, and then will testify that he did so in order to further the scheme is the -- I guess the response, if you will.

They go first, but is the reply from the prosecution.

So, one side is saying, it proves he's a liar. The other side says, you see, this is cover up activities, hiding the information that would allow

the bank to deny the account, but for the lie.

NEWTON: And again, Michael Zeldin, these are financial crimes that Trump is accused of committing. In terms of sketching out the week for us, how did

this week go because we had David Pecker on the stand for the majority of the week, and it didn't really seem to get to the heart of the matter in

terms of the actual indictment.

ZELDIN: Well, it did and it didn't. I think as that said, the critical thing for the prosecution in this case was to prove that these transactions

were designed to promote the cover up of the salacious information. That was the intent behind this crime to promote the benefit to the campaign.

Pecker did that, he wasn't impeached by the cross examination very well. And we now move on to and Trump knew Stormy Daniels, she's in his contacts.

So we can't, you know, say what he's done in the past.

Well, I don't know who she is. I don't know anything about this. She's in his contact under Stormy. And now we're beginning to see the financial

information come out, which is what the prosecution also has to tie this to that these financial transactions of Michael Cohen, to a person that Trump

knew Stormy Daniels for the purpose of interfering with the election is laying out nicely for the prosecution.

Will the jury buys it, or whether there's a reasonable doubt that's been planted in their mind? We won't know until the end, but I think so far, the

prosecution has to be happy with the way the evidence is coming in, and how their witnesses have been holding up to it.


NEWTON: Yes, and notable, Michael, that you say, of course, that David Pecker remains really a composed and credible figure for the prosecution as

he laid out what happened this week, even if it wasn't directly related to the indictable offences.

Michael Zeldin, we'll leave it there. Zachary Cohen as well in Washington for us. Thanks so much, really appreciate it.

Now, a Delta flight makes an emergency landing after losing its evacuation slide. Bianna will be back with those details and much more news when we

return here on QUEST MEANS BUSINESS.


GOLODRYGA: Delta Airlines says one of its flights made an emergency landing after an evacuation slide separated from a Boeing 767.

The airline says that its crew noted the problem shortly after the plane took off from New York's JFK Airport. Thankfully, none of the 183 people on

board were hurt. The FAA is investigating the incident.

Pete Muntean is in Washington with more. Pete, another Boeing mishap here. I mean, another day, another headline, what do we know about this issue?

PETE MUNTEAN, CNN AVIATION CORRESPONDENT: You know, these happened, these slides fall from 767s like this. But it has happened before. It's pretty

bizarre but not unheard of.

In fact, this happened only last July at a United Airlines flight coming into Chicago O'Hare from Zurich. This slide actually fell into a

neighborhood. And you could see it on doorbell cameras sort of wafting in the air down to the ground.

This happened on a Delta 767 leaving New York's JFK this morning about 7:30 a.m. Eastern Daylight Time at Delta Airlines flight 520. 183 people on

board, five flight attendants, two pilots.

The pilots initially came into knowing that this was happening by what they said was a non-routine sound that they could hear from the cockpit. And

there was an indication that one of the over wing exits actually opened up on board this plane.

Now, a 767, most of the over -- most of the emergency exit slides are stored within the door and compartments contained to the door. But what is

special about this airplane is that there are these compartments for these over wing emergency exit slides that are part of the fuselage of the

airplane. They're just behind the wing.

So, apparently, one of these opened up and this slide came down to the ground. The pilots were able to get this plane back on the ground after

about an hour in flight. Everyone was OK, they were taken to the gate. Delta says the plane was able to taxi in under its own power.


And in fact, passengers were taken on a new flight and taken to LAX where they ultimately ended up. A bit of a harrowing moment there. Although it

seems like the crew did everything right. Things remained relatively calm.

In pretty weird scenario, though, and you mentioned that there have been issue after issue on Boeing plans, not only the 737 Max 9 door plug blowout

back on January 5th, but then there have been other whistleblowers who have come forward about quality control issues on the 787 and the 777.

This happened on an airplane that's not all that new, 767 is a pretty old design by modern standards. And now this current airplane that had this

issue happen on it, is about 34 years old. It first flew off the factory floor back in 1990.

So, probably not related to a Boeing quality control issue. Of course, though, the FAA investigating and they will try to get to the bottom of it.

GOLODRYGA: It goes without saying. Here pairing a pilot warn of a non- routine sound is something that you never want to endure and here as a passenger, to say the least. Pete Muntean, thank you.

Well, breaking news just into CNN, we want to show you these dramatic video of a tornado near Lincoln, Nebraska. We are awaiting more details. Look at

this. It looks like something out of a movie.

Just in the last few hours, there have been tornado watches issued across the Midwestern United States, not just in Nebraska but also in Texas,

Oklahoma and Kansas. The residents there, please heed local warnings. You can see what appeared to be a debris and glass flying through the air. That

tornado clearly forming. Very dangerous. These videos just into CNN, we'll continue to follow this developing story. In the meantime, we'll be right



GOLODRYGA: Well, the U.S. stocks into the week on a high note, strong earnings from Alphabet and Microsoft sparked the rebound. Alphabet closed

up nearly 10 percent for the day, Microsoft ticked up almost two percent.

The SEC rally breathed new life into the markets. The Dow rose 200 points, the S&P 500 was up more than one percent and the NASDAQ spiked two percent.

Well, Ghana is in the midst of a debt crisis as it recovers from the worst economic period in a generation. And in the midst of that, it may adopt one

of Africa's harshest bills restricting LGBTQ Plus rights. The country's Supreme Court is expected to rule on that next week.

The country's finance ministry says the law could lead to a loss of nearly $4 billion in World Bank funding over the next five or six years.


What the IMF meeting last week, our Richard Quest spoke to Ghana's finance minister Mohammed Amin Adam, they spoke about the pending law but began

with Ghana's effort to reform its economy.


MOHAMMED AMIN ADAM, GHANAIAN FINANCE MINISTER: The economic reform is robust that we are implementing a lot of structural reforms, including

expenditure side reforms, as well as revenue side reforms.

For example, revenue is doing well. Last year revenue grew by about 40 percent. This year is expected to grow by around 29 percent. This is

because we have to front load our fiscal consolidation with revenue measures which are doing well.

And I am very confident that we will exit out of it a target this year and beyond. Because of this, we are also holding expenditure. I'm holding the

line on expenditure so that we do not engage in extra budgetary spending.

RICHARD QUEST, CNN HOST: You still got to have big meetings with the fund and with the bank, what are you going to be asking?

AMIN ADAM: Well, I want to assure them that the program is on course, the IMF supported program is on course, we are not going to deviate from the


QUEST: Because there are fears that you will deviate.

AMIN ADAM: We will not deviate, and we have not deviated since the program started. And the figures show that we are not deviating, we are religiously

implementing. And we are also implementing reforms, structural reforms that will build our resilience. And that will ensure that we do not go back to

the challenges that we faced.

QUEST: With the -- when you meet the World Bank, you'll have a few more problems, though, won't you, particularly convincing the World Bank not to

withdraw aid if the anti LGBT law is signed into law?

Your own ministry has produced a rather damning document showing the economic implications if the president signs it into law.

AMIN ADAM: Well, I mean, as manager of the economy, in the law that we have to pass as a country, I'm interested in the potential economic challenges

that will be associated with that law.

And so, we had to do our impact analysis, and that shows that the economy will be affected.

But Ghana, like many other countries have values that they want to protect, in spite of these values, we are a democratic country. And therefore, if it

infringes on the human rights of the people, it has to be taken for consideration by the Supreme Court.

So, this is one law that has gone to the Supreme Court by to Ghanians, for determination, and to the effect that it infringes on the human rights of

the people, the president will take a decision on that.

QUEST: You voted for the law.

AMIN ADAM: Yes, I voted for the law.

QUEST: You voted for the law as a member of parliament.

AMIN ADAM: Yes. Because this way, it was unanimous. Yes.

QUEST: It was. Yes. So you voted for the law, even though as finance minister, you knew it was going to have a detrimental effect on the


AMIN ADAM: Yes, I was not in parliament that day. But once parliament has voted for the vote, it means that all of us have voted, that is there, that

the extent to which I said I voted for the law.

But as manager of the economy, when I vote for the law or not, I have responsibility to tell my president and the people of Ghana, what the

economic impact of that law will be.

QUEST: Right.

AMIN ADAM: But here's the difficult part for you. Whether you were present or not, you voted for the law because you didn't vote against it.

Therefore, as finance minister, you are now in the position of saying to the people, by the way, that law that I voted for, it's going to cost us,

what is it, 3.44 billion over five years from loans?

And it's going to make the country highly undesirable in many places.

AMIN ADAM: Yes, absenteeism from Parliament doesn't mean voted. But once Parliament voted --

QUEST: So, why were you -- why were you absent?

AMIN ADAM: I was out of town -- I was out of town.

QUEST: On an important -- on an important vote like this minister, you chose to be out of town?

AMIN ADAM: Because I'm equal handling more important issues outside the country on behalf of the country.

QUEST: Really? More important than an issue of $5 billion in aid?


QUEST: One question finally on this, minister, you will, of course, your researchers will have told you in no uncertain terms that obviously as a

gay man myself, I am totally an absolutely utterly opposed to the law in your country.

How does it harm your society? If there are -- if LGBT people are allowed to have relationships? How does it harm it? Just tell me because I don't


AMIN ADAM: Well, I mean, as I said, I mean, Ghana is a democratic country, our constitution is supreme. People have right to decide what they want to

do as far as it is within the confines of the law, and therefore, the anti- LGBTQ law, to the extent that it infringes on the rest of the Constitution of Ghana will prevail.

QUEST: Minister, this is a law that criminalizes same sex. It criminalizes the promotion of LGBT and even the organization's in favor of LGBT.


AMIN ADAM: I have to tell you that it is not a lawyer, but it is a bill with the president has to ascend to. But to Ghanians have taken it to court

challenging the constitutionality of the bill.

QUEST: Right.

AMIN ADAM: And therefore, it cannot become a law until the Supreme Court has done its determination. And then the president has ascended to it.


GOLODRYGA: Some really strong questioning there from Richard Quest. As always, proud to call him a colleague. We'll be right back after this.


GOLODRYGA: Donald Trump's criminal hush money trial is adjourned for the week making it a good time to recap what we've learned so far.

David Pecker was the first witness called to the stand. The former tabloid publisher said that he agreed to help Trump's 2016 campaign by killing

negative stories about him.

Pecker said that he told Trump's fixer Michael Cohen that Stormy Daniels was selling her story. That story, of course, is of her alleged affair with

Donald Trump.

However, Pecker refuse to catch and kill it himself. The defense then tried to poke holes in Pecker's recollection of events highlighting some minor

inconsistencies in his past statements. We've now moved on to other witnesses.

Trump's former assistant Rhona Graff, says that she saw Stormy Daniels at Trump Tower before the 2016 campaign. Michael Cohen's former banker Gary

Farro, then took the stand. He presumably -- he'll presumably continue his testimony when court is back in session next Tuesday.

Well, that is it for our special coverage of this hour of the Trump hush money trial. I'm Bianna Golodryga in New York, "THE LEAD" with Jake Tapper

starts right now.

ANNOUNCER: Breaking news.

JAKE TAPPER, CNN ANCHOR: And we have some breaking news off the top of this hour, a dangerous storm situation right now in Nebraska as tornadoes have

been confirmed on the ground and a powerful storm is moving toward the city of Omaha.

Let's go straight to CNN's Chad Myers in the CNN weather center. Chad, you're actually quite familiar with this area. Tell us about the situation

unfolding right now.

CHAD MYERS, CNN METEOROLOGIST: Yes, this was a violent tornado just a few minutes ago across Highway 6. Also I 80, just to the east of the city

limits of Lincoln.

Now, this storm has continued to move to the north and will be affecting Bennington, Blair and the like.