Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Live Event/Special

Trump Lawyer Cross-Examines Stormy Daniels. Aired 10-10:30a ET

Aired May 09, 2024 - 10:00   ET

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

[10:00:00]

KAITLAN COLLINS, CNN ANCHOR: That is the lawyer who negotiated this agreement for Stormy Daniels that they're looking at now. And he basically was saying, I think that Stormy Daniels is publicist. Her boyfriend is going to be public and say that right before the election, Stormy Daniels was on the phone with me saying that I need to get this deal done because otherwise she was worried Trump was going to lose the election and she was going to lose her leverage.

And so the Trump team is trying to turn the tide of this election on its head and say that that is why they were pushing to get this done and go back to their extortion argument. That is the whole point here.

I will note that call between Michael Cohen and Keith Davidson was on April 4th. Five days later is when the federal agents searched and raided Michael Cohen's apartment and office and home, just to speak to the chaotic timeline of when this was all happening.

ANDERSON COOPER, CNN ANCHOR: But Breit (ph) says Daniels is in agreement between David Dennison and Peggy Peterson. Peggy Peterson was the alias for Stormy Daniels in this confidentiality agreement. David Dennison was the alias for Donald Trump.

The attorney, the defense attorney, Necheles, is Necheles is, is asking Daniels whether she understood this to be a matter negotiated by her lawyer, Keith Davidson, and Michael Cohen. You understood this was a legal matter being settled with a legal contract, right, Necheles says. Yes, Daniel says, after a pause.

What do -- I mean, why are they going over this confidentiality agreement line by line?

PAULA REID, CNN CHIEF LEGAL AFFAIRS CORRESPONDENT: So, I'm guessing that they're also going to get to the fact that the story eventually got out and she publicly denied it. So, they're going through a timeline and going to show the inconsistencies in her statement.

Again, this is significant for her credibility if she has not always been consistent in her statement, but it's also something that they can highlight that she is perhaps a liar. She will have explanations for why she lied. She argues that she believes she didn't have a choice. She was worried about being threatened. That'll make the client feel good, too. COOPER: Yes. I asked her that question back in 2018 when I interviewed her for 60 Minutes about, well, you lied in a document. You signed a document saying that there was no hush money and that there was no agreement. Daniels said she signed a statement denying a sexual encounter with Trump two days earlier, which she did. Necheles asked Daniels to confirm, she knew the article was coming out before it was published because The Wall Street Journal had reached out for comment. The Wall Street Journal, the reporter had ultimately broke this story.

COLLINS: But I'm not sure how this line of questioning is going -- how it's going to resonate with the jury, because, of course, she was denying the hush money agreement. That is the whole point of a hush money agreement is to not say that it exists. You can't go out and say, oh, yes, I can't talk to you because I've signed up six-figure sum and I also have a penalty of a million dollars if I violate this.

So, the question is all how this resonates with the jury. And this is a statement where she said, I'm stating with clarity that this is absolutely false.

The question about all of this is how it resonates with the jury. How did they see this? Yes, there are two lawyers on this jury, but most of them are regular people. And I think they understand the whole point of the hush money agreement was that she couldn't talk publicly and had to deny it.

COOPER: Which makes your point, Paula Reid, in your reporting so interesting that this is theater for Donald Trump, to appease his anger. It doesn't necessarily -- I mean, this level of detail doesn't really necessarily go to any underlying allegation of a crime or even necessarily help their case.

REID: Yes, because we're well past October 2016. We're into 2018, the alleged documents that were allegedly falsified. We're in 2017. She has no knowledge of that. So, a lot of this goes to the court of public opinion, potential reputational damage, both trying to inflict damage on her and try to remedy what she may have done on the stand.

Now, Necheles is reading from the agreement saying, quote, rumors that I received hush money from Donald Trump are completely false, again, trying to catch her in contradictory statements.

But Kaitlan makes an important point, right? You have this client -- we all have to manage up, right? We've all had difficult bosses. This is probably the most difficult one you could have, but at what cost, right? You don't want to engage in the kind of theatrics that we saw. Daniel says, correct, because it wasn't a rumor. It was the truth. You don't want to engage in the kind of theatrics that we saw in the civil litigation where Trump and his attorney, Alina Habba, were antagonizing the judge constantly, constantly disruptive because that hurt them in the end when there was eventually a verdict.

So, here is a fine line. You want to get your message across for your client and for the jury, but you also don't want the jury to think that you're not focused on the case. COOPER: And Necheles is showing Daniels' January 30th, 2018 statement saying, again, denying a sexual relationship with Trump. She actually signed two documents denying a relationship in 2018. Necheles reads the statement out loud. Stormy Daniels pointed out just a short time ago that she didn't actually write those statements, but she did in, in fact sign them, per the confidentiality agreement.

REID: And this is a much better way, right? To ask her about statements, contradictory statements, to get your point across than what he was doing on Tuesday, which was audibly cursing under his breath, or fighting with a judge, like we saw in the civil litigation.

COOPER: And, essentially -- I mean, the point of this is essentially showing that Stormy Daniels is willing to lie in a public forum and sign a document that's a lie in order to further her own interests.

REID: If she lied here, why wouldn't she lie about what happened in Tahoe?

[10:05:00]

COLLINS: It's also the timing of all of this because Donald Trump is already in office by this point. So, previously, she was saying she wanted to get the story out before the election, that that was her motivation, not money. And they're basically trying to paint her in a corner by highlighting all of her denials and saying, well, it had nothing to do with the election after that because it's 2018 and she's still denying it, and essentially trying to say to the jury that she was motivated by money and nothing else.

She's talking about how she signed her name differently than she had before. That's in that agreement where she was about to go out and do the Jimmy Kimmel interview.

I will say there's an interesting tactic, and I'm sure Paula has picked up on this, that Susan Necheles uses, where she seems to ask a question that she know there will be an objection to, and it'll potentially be sustained by the judge.

But it doesn't matter because, yes, maybe in the court transcript, it's not in there, but the jury still hears it. They still hear her say, you're an extortionist, you were doing this. And even if she backtracks, which she seems to always have a substitute question ready to go, the jury has already heard that. And she's saying that she was pushed to sign that statement by Michael Cohen via Keith Davidson before she went and did that Jimmy Kimmel.

And there's Susan Necheles saying, well Donald Trump wasn't running for election at that point, saying of course, it's 2018, he's already in the White House.

COOPER: Yes, he was already president, right? He was concerned about his family, right, Necheles asked. That's important. Obviously Trump's attorney is trying to point out that it was the family of Melania Trump, the children, that was the motivation for Trump to deny this. REID: Yes. But that's one place that Stormy Daniels actually did help prosecutors because she said, look, I was never asked to keep our alleged tryst confidential. He met with me subsequently publicly, including with at least one additional alleged mistress, Karen McDougal. So, she did kind of undercut that defense during her direct examination. Let's see where this goes on cross.

COLLINS: I mean, remember, this is the time that, when all of this came out, Melania Trump renegotiated her pre-nup before she would move to the White House. She wasn't in Washington for several months when Donald Trump took office, something that really bothered him. I mean, that could be a defense that Trump's team could use, but, clearly, they haven't.

And Necheles is asking Stormy Daniels, you understand that President Trump had a brand. Laughing, Daniels responded, brand? Yes.

And I think that is also something important that you can't always see from reading these updates and not being in the room, Anderson, is that her tone, as she's been talking about Trump, is dripping with condescension. She is someone who clearly -- I mean, she didn't have to say that she hated Trump because it was already clear, but it is amazing to watch her testify and the way she talks about him in this derisive, mocking manner is.

COOPER: He's not used to having people talk about him like that in front of him, certainly not since he's been president.

COLLINS: And to where he can say nothing. And that goes back to what we were saying earlier, that this is why Donald Trump wants this to happen cross-examination to go on as long as possible because he personally is enjoying it.

COOPER: The prosecution objected. Necheles asked Daniels if she eventually wanted to publicly announce she had sex with Trump.

REID: I don't think any of the jurors go home at night and think, oh, she seems nice, right? She comes across, like you said, condescending, opportunistic. The question is whether they trust what she testified to. Daniels said, no. Nobody would ever want to say publicly I wanted to publicly defend myself. So, they're saying no one would ever want to publicly say that they had sex with Trump. She's saying she just wanted to defend herself.

What's important is whether the jury believes she is credible in her account of what happened in Tahoe. And remember how specific she was in terms of the marble, the size of the room. That's why they had to get all those details because they wanted to establish that she remembers this and she is credible.

You wanted to make more money, right, Necheles is asking. No, that's why I did 60 Minutes for free, which is a good response on Daniels' part, because, of course, 60 minutes does not pay for interviews.

COOPER: I did that.

COLLINS: You did not pay her, right?

COOPER: I can certainly attest to. And Necheles then asked whether she hired Michael Avenatti as her lawyer. Yes, Daniels said. That was something that during the interview we discussed with her why she was doing 60 Minutes, it was a decision made by Stormy Daniels and I assume her attorney, Michael Avenatti, to not do an interview with some outlet that would pay in order to clearly bolster her credibility.

Necheles then asked whether she hired Michael Avenatti as her lawyer, yes, Daniels said.

REID: In 60 Minutes, I believe the biggest audience in television.

COOPER: Yes, from what I understand.

COLLINS: And Stormy Daniels' demeanor on the stand also with Susan Necheles has been incredibly defiant. Necheles is asking her to confirm that even after she did the 60 Minutes interview for free, she did get lots of publicity. I mean, I'm not sure how that argument will go over with the jury, if that is going to resonate as her --

COOPER: Lots of bad publicity, Stormy Daniels said. A ton of publicity, Necheles reiterated. Yes, Daniels said.

COLLINS: That characterizes really how this has gone, the back and forth, and how Stormy Daniels has handled the cross-examination. Because they will try to say, well, you've benefited from this, you've gained from this. And she -- the other day they said, well, you made a money off of Trump. And she said, yes, well, this has also cost me a lot of money. I mean, she owes Donald Trump half a million dollars in legal fees right now after she tried, her and Michael Avenatti -- she and Michael Avenatti tried to pursue him for defamation.

And so I think she has been compelling and pushing back and saying, this hasn't just been rainbows and kittens for me.

[10:10:02]

I haven't just made a ton of money off this and my life is enriched by this. It has also made my life more difficult.

COOPER: Necheles asked whether Daniels was able to negotiate a book contract after the 60 Minutes interview.

REID: And I believe most of the money that she would have made from that book contract she lost. Michael Avenatti embezzled that from her. Yes, Daniels says. And it was for $800,000, Necheles asked, yes, Daniels replies. And that's why this is complicated. At one point, yes, she did get a book deal, she did make money, she had this tour, she's going around the country, she's getting lots of attention. Daniels acknowledges that Avenatti arranged for her appearance on CNN and The View, but said he took himself along for her. He took everything else for himself. And, of course, that's a nod to his embezzlement. Now, you have been paid almost $930,000, almost a million dollars. You capitalized by doing a strip club tour. That was the tour I was just talking, again, called Make America Horny Again. Daniels said she fought against the name on that tour, but they're showing the ways that she profited.

I'm assuming on redirect, prosecutors will also show that again, as Kaitlan just said, she owes Trump hundreds of thousands of dollars. She has faced enormous consequences in her personal life, and as of now, I think has difficulty supporting herself.

COOPER: Yes. And she's also in debt to Donald Trump because she is expected to pay for legal fees because through Michael Avenatti, she sued Trump for libel in a California court. That did not go in her favor, and the judge awarded said, it was frivolous and awarded legal fees. I did not name that tour, and I fought it tooth and nail, Daniel says, of the Make America Horny Again tour.

COLLINS: And this all goes back to how compelling and incredible she comes across to the jury. As they're watching this, where do they put more value? I mean, they already know about the confidentiality agreement that we went through. They already know about her issues with Michael Avenatti. That has already been brought up in this testimony.

The question is really, you know, who does the argument resonate more within the jury? Is it her testimony on Tuesday, where she revealed incredibly personal details about her interactions with Donald Trump or is it this effort by Trump's defense team to try to undermine her and say she was basically just in it for the money?

REID: Yes, it just does not matter that she called her tour the Make America Horny Again tour when she subsequently went around stripping after doing 60 Minutes. It is just not material to this case. It's not material to falsifying business records. It is not material to allegedly trying to influence an election. This again feels like it's an op for an audience of one right now and to undermine her credibility.

I'm curious to see how much longer the judge lets this go on.

COOPER: Let's go back Acosta in D. C. Jim?

JIM ACOSTA, CNN ANCHOR: All right, interesting time to come back to us here in D.C., Anderson.

You know, they're going over, Laura, this decision to call Stormy Daniels I guess strip club tour, the Make America Horny Again tour, I'm searching and you guys can help me out, I mean, how does this damage Stormy Daniels?

LAURA COATES, CNN ANCHOR AND CHIEF LEGAL ANALYST: Well, first of all, in my mind --

ACOSTA: We've been listening to this for the last ten minutes or so. It almost seems as though she's kind of washed away the damage that might have been done to her on Tuesday when people were saying, oh, she hates Donald Trump and so on. She comes across as perhaps the most authentic person in this trial.

COATES: They're also going on to talk about a photo where he saw her live, you can too. All of this is true. They are actually building the case for the prosecution.

Let me go to my tablet for a second, please, everyone, because here is why, right? You've got this timeline at play here. The only thing that matters is this date, when the Access Hollywood tape came in, I'll use yellow and set October 7th, when she was paid, October 27th, right, then Election Day. That is what matters here, nothing else. I was not signing myself to anyone. She said I was performing at clubs and whoever wanted to pay admission.

If everything is true and that she is, in fact, somebody who was trying to shake him down, somebody who wanted money from Donald Trump, somebody who would -- yes, who would stop at nothing to get the money or have this story come out, well, guess what? That paints the picture of somebody who was incentivized, who's running for president and says, I got to pay this person so it doesn't come out before the election.

So, every time they look at why she's perhaps in their mind, somebody who is going to try to get the money, they are making the case for the prosecution on that. And, by the way, I don't subscribe to the idea that they are going to be successful to suggest that every jury is looking down their nose at Stormy Daniels and suggesting, oh, she's a porn star. Well, therefore I'm going to think about her less. She's a stripper in some ways. I'm not going to think about her.

ACOSTA: Yes.

COATES: Okay. Well, there's a man who paid her.

ACOSTA: Right. Elie, is this a good job? I mean, is it a good idea to keep reminding the jury she's a stripper? I mean, yes, we know that.

ELIE HONIG, CNN SENIOR LEGAL ANALYST: The cross-examination is now officially meandering, right? They're directionless in contrast to Tuesday, where it was very direct. It was, you hate Donald Trump. Yes, I do. You think it's great and funny that he might go to jail. Yes, I do, right? You made flatly inconsistent statements with what you just testified to? Yes, but they were false.

Now, we're into this, the weeds of why the agreement, what her motivation was, she made money.

[10:15:03]

What I would have done here instead of the whole 45 minutes that they've spent, I would have said you made a lot of money off this, right? Yes. You got an $800,000 book advance, right? Yes. You made $130,000 through the hush money payment, right? You made close to a million dollars. It just goes to her motive. But this is now drifting, in my view, and it's ineffective as a result. JAMIE GANGEL, CNN SPECIAL CORRESPONDENT: I think it's worse than meandering and drifting. I think the cross is now hurting the defense, because when we were off the air a few minutes ago, we took a poll of the five women who are on this panel, and I think it's --

ACOSTA: Very scientific poll.

GANGEL: Yes, very scientific poll. It was, however, 100 percent, which doesn't happen in polls often.

KASIE HUNT, CNN ANCHOR: But in fairness, we are a certain segment of the population, but I'll let you continue.

GANGEL: The outcome of the poll was that the five of us all thought that she was a good witness, someone that we like, that we find likable and credible --

HUNT: As a witness.

GANGEL: -- as a witness.

NIA-MALIKA HENDERSON, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL ANALYST: No. I was going to say, I'm sure it infuriates Donald Trump that this woman, who he is essentially trying to slut shame up there, right, sort of turn her into a nasty woman, he is infuriated by the fact that she is up there and she's --

ACOSTA: Because he wants to do that.

HENDERSON: Yes, that's what he wants to do. That is why I think the lawyers, I think, Laura, you would agree with this, the lawyers are sort of doing it as --

ACOSTA: If prosecution objects.

HENDERSON: Yes, at his behest.

ACOSTA: Allowing Daniels to answer, this is about Daniel's being asked whether she had an affair with one of the documentary producers, getting at your point.

HENDERSON: Yes.

ACOSTA: You know, that there's some slut shaming.

HENDERSON: Yes. And she cannot be shamed, right? I mean, she is in the adult film business and she's fine with it. And I think you see Donald Trump. I think he was cursing yesterday, and you can see, I think, that it is his motivation to really shame this woman and it's not working.

COATES: And she walked in and said, when he asked her, how do you want to be addressed? She said, Stormy Daniels, that she owned it from the very inception of the direct examination. This is who I am. And you know what? Why shouldn't she? She talks about it. And when what's gone on, again, she has not professed to be in love with him. She is saying this was a transactional notion. She wants the money.

But you know what, who believed her? Michael Cohen and Donald Trump. They paid her the money. They believed that she, in fact, would expose this story and harm his ability to become the president of the United States. If you're going to tell the jury, why should you believe her when they paid her and did believe her?

ACOSTA: Yes. Karen, I mean, is this the danger of performing for the audience of one instead of the jury?

KAREN FRIEDMAN AGNIFILO, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: Exactly. That's exactly what Judge Kiesel was saying. It's really not about the defendant. You got to respect your lawyers. These are good lawyers and you should really listen to them. Because, really, what they're doing here by going after her in this way, is they're showing her authenticity.

Again, just like Laura said, she's not hiding who she is. She is leaning into who she is. She's being called Stormy Daniels. She's talking about all the things that she does and doesn't do. And by going and doing this cross-examination, in some ways, I think it can backfire because they're going to feel sorry for her. She owes this billionaire a half a million dollars. Look what he's done to her life. I mean, in some ways, yes, she made some money, but also her lawyer, Michael Avenatti, he's in prison for stealing from her.

And so this is who she is and what has happened to her. So I would be careful.

ACOSTA: Yes. At one point, Daniels tells Trump's attorney, you're trying to trick me into saying something that's not entirely true. She is not intimidated by anything.

AGNIFILO: She's holding her own. She is a scrappy, smart. That's the one thing about her background. She was very, very smart.

ACOSTA: She sees this as maybe the role of a lifetime here.

HUNT: Well, I mean, look, I don't know that I even want to ascribe that to her because I think you are picking up on how much she, in many ways, didn't want to be in this situation, but she tried to take what it was and make something of it to the extent she could for her. I mean, I think anyone who has been in a situation like this with Donald Trump going after them in this way knows that it can be a very trying situation reality, right?

And you're seeing, and the thing that the judge was saying earlier that was so interesting to me was this idea that it's now the client that is like causing all of this.

ACOSTA: And Necheles asking Daniels if she said she'd be instrumental in putting Trump in jail. Daniels has asked to be shown where she said that.

COATES: And, I mean, when you have an effective cross, the only answer you want out of your witness is yes. Remember when Hope Hicks was on the stand and you had Emil Bove. And he would say at the end of every single question, right, correct, leading her to say, yes, correct, yes, correct. Because the whole point of the cross is for you to narrate what you want the jury to hear. You can leave -- unlike direct examination you had right here, Daniels saying -- she showed a tweet saying exactly, making me the best person to flush the orange turd down.

Well, okay, she's talking about Donald Trump there. It doesn't make her sound like she's going to be the person you're going to invite to do face painting at your kids parties.

[10:20:01]

It doesn't matter though. It doesn't matter.

ACOSTA: But, again, thinking of all the things, the crazy blank things that Donald Trump has tweeted over the years, how does this help about Stormy Daniels calling her horse face and so on? How does this help the defense attacking her in this fashion? It seems like it's elevating her. And Daniels, I don't see instrumental or jail anywhere in that. You're putting words in my mouth.

AGNIFILO: Yes, she's holding her own on the stand against these defense attorneys and the jury is going to see that and they're going to notice.

COATES: Let's take it back. Let me just, if I can do one more tablet thing, cause, you know, I love a good Venn diagram and I want to apologize for the Pokemon-esque colors of this one, since I just mentioned a kid's party. But you wondering why we're even here. Like her alleged sexual encounter that we're talking about is here. What about the falsified business records of why we're here?

Well, the only thing that intersects here is one thing, intent, right? What was the intent? We were talking about the hush money trial. We talk -- excuse me, not this document. Hold on a second. We're talking about who has already been on the stand and thinking about what you actually need, because what you have to prove is the intent, the intent to actually commit another crime here, the idea of the timing of here, the falsified business entries here as to why. She's only on the stand to suggest not whether or not she actually had sex with Donald Trump. It doesn't even matter if she did to this jury. What matters, it should matter to the jury, is whether he thought she would expose that allegation before the actual election.

She says, look, pretty sure this is hyperbole. If somebody is going to call me a toilet, I can say I'm going to flush the guy. She is going right back addressing the fact that she was no shrinking violet when it came to Donald Trump. I can only imagine right now what Donald Trump is doing in the courtroom. is he's slapping the elbows of attorneys saying to just do more? If she says, pushing on the tweet, Necheles says, you don't want to admit you meant President Trump. It's obvious she's talking about President Trump, but, again, as a helper case, Nia.

HENDERSON: Yes, it not. Yes. Oh, absolutely, I meant it was Trump. And, listen, to the extent that Donald Trump is upset with anybody, he should be upset with these terrible lawyers. I mean, I'm not a lawyer. I mean, Laura, I mean, how do you think these lawyers are doing? How do you grade them?

COATES: I mean, he's not paying me the money. So, they're billing probably what he wants, but the same token, their job is to try to undermine her credibility. And they're hoping that just one juror will find this person to be somebody that they do not like, respect, therefore do not believe, and want to elevate Trump to an acquittal.

HUNT: I mean, Todd Blanche is no slouch as a lawyer either.

ACOSTA: Yes. All right, let me go back to Anderson. Anderson, a lot to discuss, a lot to chew on this morning.

COOPER: Yes. I didn't think I'd ever say this sentence, but they're actually arguing over who the orange turd is that Stormy Daniels referenced in a tweet. She says, oh, I absolutely meant Mr. Trump. So, Stormy Daniels has now clarified that is, in fact, who she was talking about when she talked about flushing an orange turd down the toilet.

Necheles wants to introduce another tweet where Daniels is responding to someone else's tweet. The prosecution asked now to approach the bench.

Our Jake Tapper is inside the courtroom today providing real-time insights in his own court his sketches. Here is a sketch of Stormy Daniels on the stand this morning. Let's take a look at that, from our Jake Tapper.

Necheles wants to introduce -- she's wearing -- I'm told she's wearing the same cardigan that she wore before in court with green. She's wearing glasses when she walked in. We're told she had the glasses on her head. She's now wearing them looking at evidence.

I want to also bring in Brian Stelter. He's a special correspondent for Vanity Fair and author of the book, Networks of Lies. Brian, Necheles wants to introduce another tweet. As I said, this is where we are right now. The prosecution has asked to approach the bench. What do you make of the testimony we've heard so far this morning?

BRIAN STELTER, SPECIAL CORRESPONDENT, VANITY FAIR: Right. We're hearing about Stormy Daniels and how she punched back at Donald Trump. Once her private life from 2006 was forced into the public realm, she did not shrink when Donald Trump would attack her, would insult her.

And this has been a debate, Anderson, that's been going on for the better part of a decade. What is the proper way to deal with a bully? What do you do when a politician or a president is bullying you on Twitter? Well, we know what Stormy Daniels did. She punched back. She came up with the orange turd. I mean, these are lines that a Hollywood writer's room couldn't come up with, Anderson, but that is exactly what Stormy Daniels did, and she's proud of it.

And I'm struck by how she's had so much time to prepare for this, right? She last talked to Donald Trump in 2007. Here we are in 2024. She was able to talk to you. She was able to write her book. She was able to talk in many forums. So, she's so well prepared for this moment.

COOPER: Judge Merchan just sustained the objection.

You know, it's going to be interesting to hear, Brian, how ultimately if jurors ever speak, how effective they think this kind of level of cross-examination of Stormy Daniels has been. There's obviously a danger of spending a lot of time in the weeds on tweets that Stormy Daniels did.

[10:25:03]

Paul Reid had made the point based on sources that some of this, of what the defense is doing, is essentially client maintenance, is essentially what Donald Trump wants them to do, not necessarily what they may have wanted to do.

STELTER: Yes, exactly. My homework this week was to re-read Stormy's book, Full Disclosure. And, you know, it was striking to me how much more explicit she was, how much more revealing she was about Trump in that book than she was on the stand. I know a lot of commentators have said that this went into graphic detail on Tuesday, maybe more detailed today, but she was actually very restrained on the stand compared to what she put in the book.

And there were times she was quite sympathetic to Trump. It is striking the client maintenance point, to your point, Anderson. Now today, Fox's Jeanine Pirro showing up at the court, you know, Donald Trump has some supporters he's not had there before, perhaps because seeing Stormy on the stand is especially emotional for him.

COOPER: Susan Necheles is saying, when Trump was indicted in this case, you celebrated on Twitter. You celebrated on Twitter, she said to Stormy Daniels, response saying, I tweeted about him being indicted. Yes. People asked how they could support me. So, I tweeted the link to my store, Daniel says. Again, going after the motive, Brian, which Necheles has, has been hammering now probably for about an hour or so, that Stormy Daniels has been in this for the money.

STELTER: Right. But I think if I'm the jury, and this is to your point, it'd be so interesting to hear from these jurors weeks from now about how they regarded Stormy Daniels.

You try to put yourself in the position of someone like her, someone who -- this was buried in her past. This was ancient history by the time Donald Trump decided to run for president. All of a sudden, through no fault of her own, she is forced into this awkward situation and then into the public limelight. And then into situations where she can make money off of this and become famous in a whole new way, a juror might ask, what would you do? What would they do in a situation like this?

There's a great article from New York Mag this morning saying, the night she met Donald Trump, quote, changed both their worlds, but she didn't want any of this, at least not initially.

COOPER: Yes. Brian Stelter, thank you so much.

I'm back with Paula Reid and Kaitlan Collins. By the way, I love that Jake Tapper is able to both, you know, send us messages from inside the court about what's going on and also make a sketch. I don't know of any other anchor or reporter who's also a sketch artist. Jake is a very talented cartoonist and has done a bunch, and that's Jake's first sketch. I look forward to seeing more.

That's me doing my job, Daniels responds. Necheles had said, that was you shilling your merchandise, right?

REID: Now, what we're seeing right now, as I said earlier, this is the trailer for the cross-examination of Michael Cohen.

So, as this has devolved into arguments about what is or is not in the toilet and who it represents, this is exactly what we're going to see with Michael Cohen, but it's going to go on for days. Daniel's tweet, thank you to everyone for your support and love. I have so many messages coming in and that I cannot respond.

But this, as uncomfortable and weird as this has been at times, it's going to be this times 100 with Cohen because that's where the defense's focus has been. Todd Blanche is expected to likely do that cross. Daniels tweet continues, also, don't want to spill my champagne. Team Stormy merch/autograph, orders are pouring in, so, Susan Necheles getting in here at how she was profiting off of this.

COLLINS: What's amazing about this line of questioning, and they're going after Stormy Daniels because she confirmed that the day that Trump was indicted, she was drinking champagne and she posted a link to a store that sells --

COOPER: Right. You're celebrating the indictment by selling things from your store.

COLLINS: But Donald Trump literally has fundraised off of all of his indictments. Every time he's indicted, you get multiple fundraisers.

COOPER: They were selling T-shirts.

COLLINS: They sold T-shirts of a mugshot that that wasn't actually his mugshot. Before he even had a mugshot, they were selling T-shirts with that. They have NFTs on this. They completely fundraised off of it. It's his entire operation and how he's made so much money. They brag about how much money he has made and raised when he has been indicted each time that he has been indicted.

And so it is notable that now the defense is going after Stormy Daniels because she was also trying to make money after Donald Trump was indicted.

REID: You make a great point.

COOPER: It's like the police inspector is shocked to find there's gambling in Rick's Casino. There's a lot of people in this for the money.

REID: But if the prosecutors don't bring up the Trump merchandise on redirect, that will be the real crime here.

COOPER: Necheles asked whether Daniels is selling items in her store about how she got the president indicted. Again, Donald Trump is also selling items in his store.

COLLINS: It's also the same thing that they're criticizing her for --

COOPER: Daniels response, sounding surprised, I got President Trump indicted?

COLLINS: Because she asked, she said the day that she got him indicted. I mean, essentially, that is kind of the heart of this matter. It wasn't her necessarily. It was the agreement and the business records. But Stormy Daniels is at the heart of this.

But turning this back on, on, they're criticizing her for making money off of it when Donald Trump himself has also raised a lot of money off of it.

[10:30:00]

They're also criticizing her for criticizing Trump. He's the one who was calling her a horse face publicly from the White House is going after her.