Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Live Event/Special

Soon: Stormy Daniels Resumes Testimony In Hush Money Trial; Trump Lawyer Cross-Examines Stormy Daniels; Stormy Daniels Testifies In Hush Money Trial. Aired 11:30a-12p ET

Aired May 09, 2024 - 11:30   ET

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

[11:30:00]

JAMIE GANGEL, CNN SPECIAL CORRESPONDENT: And Donald Trump has been saying it never happened. So, that --

DANA BASH, CNN ANCHOR: And why does that matter when it -- when it comes to the underlying?

GANGEL: Because it speaks to his credibility. Because if he won't say, yes. this happened, let's move on, then why believe that he did this because he was worried about Melania as opposed to the -- (INAUDIBLE)

BASH: And why believe that he didn't really know about the "books cooking?"

GANGEL: Correct.

BASH: That is another part of it.

GANGEL: Correct.

KASIE HUNT, CNN ANCHOR & CHIEF NATIONAL AFFAIRS ANALYST: And we also saw testimony earlier in the trial where Trump was basically shown to have said don't pay for this stuff, it always gets out. Right? And that -- when he said that it was in the context of not of a presidential campaign, right? He was saying that in the context of regular life in which he was married.

That seems to suggest to me that there is a difference here. I -- who knows if the jury is going to see it that way. But that under one certain -- set of circumstances, well, don't pay this off because it's going to get out, you know, all I'm worried about as my family, on the other hand now, OK, that story is worth $130,000 if it might cost him an election.

GANGEL: To Kasie's point, he wasn't worried about his family back then. But this is all happening in October, two weeks before the election in the wake of Access Hollywood. There's one big difference. There's an election.

BASH: All right. While there is a break in the court, we too are going to take a quick break. A very, very contentious morning of cross- examination. Susan Necheles asking Daniels "This wasn't the first time in your life someone made a pass at you." Stormy Daniels responding, no, but it is the first time they had a bodyguard standing outside the door. Much more on CNN's special live coverage next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[11:36:24]

ANDERSON COOPER, CNN ANCHOR: And moments ago, Donald Trump heading back into the courtroom, a legal strategy or strategy to please the former president of the United States. Welcome back to CNN's special coverage of Donald Trump's hush money trial. I'm Anderson Cooper in New York.

This morning, in the building behind me, a feisty exchange after a feisty exchange between Stormy Daniels and Trump attorney Susan Necheles. We have been covering it all. I'm here with Paula Reid and Kaitlan Collins in New York. Let's just quickly recap for our viewers who are just joining us. I mean, we have seen very tense exchanges, very rapid exchanges back and forth between Susan Necheles and Stormy Daniels.

PAULA REID, CNN CHIEF LEGAL AFFAIRS CORRESPONDENT: Yes, revisiting some of the themes that we already saw on cross on Tuesday. One is her inconsistent statements, her dislike of the defendant, and questions about her financially benefiting from having said that she had sex with Trump. So, it's been contentious at times.

Now -- right now, we believe the court is going to get underway here shortly. It's unclear how much longer this is going to go. But as we've all said repeatedly, not much of what we've heard on this cross is material to the case.

Now, Trump is back in the courtroom after a brief morning break. He is standing and turning to look back at the gallery of the courtroom, which is full of sketch artists, journalists, and members of the public. The judge is now back on the bench. They're probably going to get underway in just a minute here.

KAITLAN COLLINS, CNN ANCHOR: Yes. And the judge is back on the bench. Stormy Daniels is about to be called back into the room. He comes back in first and then he asks for the witness to come in. Apparently, he said it hurriedly, can we get the witness?

And so, the question is how much longer Trump's attorneys continue with his cross-examination that I think has taken meandering turns about whether or not they had dinner the night that she met Donald Trump to you know, criticizing her for making money off of her story with Donald Trump as she pushed back on Trump's attorney saying not unlike Mr. Trump, who has also made money off of his name and likeness his entire life, but also often these indictments. And so, I think the question is, how much longer this goes on, and also how much fodder it is provided for the prosecution when they get the chance to question her once they're back.

COOPER: Well, they've also just had an opportunity to consult with their client, Donald Trump, and get a read from him of how much more he wants, how much -- I mean, if this is -- to your reporting Paula Reid, sort of climbed maintenance in there, taking instructions of how far they want to go from Donald Trump. You know, this is a chance to check-in.

REID: Yes. It's probably a good idea at this point. Because remember, if we look big picture just at this trial, the threat of jail is out there if Trump publicly attacked Stormy Daniels. And we know that he did talk about a witness who was coming who got short notice right before her appearance, his lawyers made him take that post down because they're concerned that could violate the gag order. The judge has said if you violate this gag order again, you could go to jail.

You also saw an outburst in court on Tuesday during some of the more explicit portions of her testimony. So doing this, if this can appease their client if this can make him feel validated, feel heard, and get him to calm down and behave himself and not run afoul of the gag order, that is probably a win for them. And it is still unclear how this is playing with the jury.

COOPER: They also --

COLLINS: So --

COOPER: Go ahead.

COLLINS: What they do in this brief period is they go into a staging room where it is just Trump, his attorneys, but also all the political aides and allies that he brings with him. And as you can see, there are several of them with him today, including Senator Rick Scott. I should note the Senate is in Washington and voting today but he is -- he was out here just defending Donald Trump a few moments ago.

And Trump's attorney Susan Necheles is resuming her questioning of Stormy Daniels. She was the one -- she's the only woman on Trump's defense team here. She's the one who was selected to cross-examine her, not surprisingly.

But it's -- basically, Trump and his allies telling him how the coverage is going when they're in these meetings. He is often giving them instructions on how he believes it's going, what he thinks they need to be doing, and so that is the question of how much it informs, what they actually do, how much they push back and say, OK, thanks, but no thanks. And they don't do everything Donald Trump tells them to do. I should be clear. But you know --

[11:40:11]

COOPER: There's also a time question of there's a lunch break, usually around 1:00 or so, so you know, will they want to go up to that? Will they want more Stormy Daniels? Afterward, there will probably be a redirect though.

COLLINS: Yes.

COOPER: The prosecutors will want another chance to talk to her.

REID: I would definitely expect the prosecutors will want to go back at this to clarify some things also, you know, just highlight some of the hypocrisy like what we were talking about earlier about Trump being able to sell indictment merchandise, but she can't. There's going to be a lot of things that they're going to want to clean up. And then the question is, how much time do we have left at the end of the day?

It's unlikely that would go to the end of the day, but it's possible. And then after Stormy Daniels is done, we expect we could have some summary witnesses. So, these aren't going to be household names necessarily but people who can get evidence or establish a couple of facts before they're expected to call their blockbuster witness, Michael Cohen.

COOPER: I want to bring in Adam Kaufmann. He's a former Executive Assistant District Attorney for the Manhattan DA's office. Adam, it's you -- it's good to have you on again. I may interrupt just to give some notes from the courtroom from our reporters. How do you think the testimony this morning has gotten?

ADAM KAUFMANN, FORMER EXECUTIVE ASSISTANT, MANHATTAN DISTRICT ATTORNEY: So, hi, Anderson. Thanks for having me. You know, I'm -- to me a lot of what's going on here. I've been sort of concerned about this case.

And, of course, it's easy to sit on the sidelines and second guess but a lot of what we've heard from Stormy Daniels has really nothing to do with the alleged crime. And my fear is that if you -- you know, sort of compare where the prosecution started with sort of talk about A.D.A. Colangelo saying this is election interference, plain and simple. That was sort of the opening.

And to me, they've put in all of this other evidence, but you know, this is really tawdry. And you go from this lofty idea of election --

COOPER: Well, actually, I -- just to that point.

KAUFMANN: Yes.

COOPER: Talking -- sorry, just to the tawdry point, Necheles is returning now to do make American horny tour again -- make American -- America horny again tour. reminding Daniels, she testified that she hated that name. The jury is seeing a February 2, 2018, post from Daniels' Instagram account. Sorry, go ahead to you, Adam, talking about the tawdriness of this.

KAUFMANN: I -- to me, it feels like this testimony is sort of it belies that sort of lofty election interference. It makes it -- this is really -- you know, it makes it about a hush money payment. And it's, very sort of pedestrian.

You know, I would have kept Stormy Daniels on the stand for 10 witnesses -- 10 questions to establish that she received this money. But you know, to go into all of this. This is sort of a sideshow. And I think it detracts from the prosecution in many ways. I think it's a distraction. It keeps the jury from focusing.

At the end of the day, the jury has to focus on this very technical, precise issue of the falsification of business records. And I -- you know, I understood having Pecker and McDougal and all of that background come in to give a context, but this to me is a distraction. And I think the defense -- it gives the defense the opportunity to speak to the imprecision of the case and all of this sort of extra collateral -- extra material that's come in. And it makes -- to me, it makes the prosecution case weaker.

COOPER: Yes. Just -- while I've been talking, Susan Necheles is pointing out the inconsistency in Stormy Daniels's testimony today, but also with prior statements. Earlier, said Daniels testified that she'd never posted about that tour she made of strip clubs using this sort of make America horny again label which she said she didn't like. Then, Necheles showed her a tweet. And then Stormy Daniels said, well, that was from my business account, and that she was reluctant to tweet. But that they -- she said meaning though, I guess the people around her sponsoring perhaps her or backing her tour made her do that. Trump's team has shown two posts now from Instagram.

Is there -- I mean as a -- do you think the defense is wise to be, you know, going back into that hotel suite in Lake Tahoe at the golf tournament? Are they wise to, you know, be going after every inconsistency from an In Touch Magazine article in 2011? Necheles is showing the jury a second Instagram post on Daniels's account, advertising the "Make America Horny Tour." I mean, are they wise to keep talking about the "Make America Horny Tour?"

KAUFMANN: I -- you know, I think so. Look, Susan Necheles is a really, really good defense attorney and a really skilled cross-examiner. You know, it's hard when you're sitting outside. You don't get the feel of the courtroom. You're not seeing the jury's response -- the jury's body language.

[11:45:07]

I'm sure she's tuned into it. And, you know, I think that going through all of these inconsistencies -- I mean, when a witness says, oh, I didn't want to do it, someone made me do it? That's -- you know, that makes the witness look kind of like a liar, kind of like they're scrambling a little bit. And I think that's very effective.

COOPER: How much --

(CROSSTALK)

COOPER: When you are in a court -- (INAUDIBLE) Necheles is returning to ask. Now, Necheles is returning to ask you about the celebrity golf tournament. When you're in court -- and Necheles asked Daniels if Trump played well at the tournament. I don't know what the scores were Daniels said.

When you're -- when you're arguing a case in front of a jury, how much do you pay attention to the jury's response while you're doing that? Or is that for others on your team to kind of be monitoring that and some -- and in a break, they might inform you of you -- how they think it's going?

KAUFMANN: It's both. You know, you'll see -- you'll see someone pass a note. You'll see someone, you know, sort of glanced back to the table a little bit. You know, there is a whole performative aspect to a jury trial.

When you're trying a lot of cases -- and I haven't tried a lot of cases lately. But when -- you know, when you're in that mode, and you know, when you're -- when -- and Susan tries a lot of cases. And the prosecutors, you know. Steinglass tries a lot of cases.

But when you're -- when you're there, you really -- you know, and you're in that mode, you really are very attuned to everything going on in the courtroom.

COOPER: Yes.

KAUFMANN: And you have that ability to both be aware of what the jury's response while you're still laser-focused on the witness.

COOPER: Yes.

KAUFMANN: And listening to the responses and react --

COOPER: Adam Kaufman, I really appreciate your expertise. Thank you so much. It's good to have you back on the program.

KAUFMANN: Thank you.

COOPER: Again, Necheles asked that people recognize Trump that day at the golf tournament, yes, Stormy Daniels says. But they recognize me where I went that day too, Daniels says with a shrug. It's interesting what I was pointing out about feeling, you know, with the defense team and the prosecutors' feeling the -- sort of the energy the -- in the court, feeling how the jury is.

Once you're actually -- I mean, it's so limited what we were able to do here. Not having cameras in the court and not being in the courtroom with -- you know, all of us have been in the courtroom at times. It is such a different experience. And there really is, you can sense the -- there's a feeling in the room. It's a hard thing to kind of put your finger on.

COLLINS: And that's why there was so much focus on the jury selection, obviously, by both sides, but certainly by Trump's team. And you know, he's complained about it. They felt pretty good about how the jury selection went. Because the question is, how is all of this playing with the jury?

I mean, one argument that Susan Necheles has been making, maybe this is because of they know -- you know, the demographics of this jury is you know, saying that Stormy Daniels made up phony stories about sex, talking about all the men that she has slept with for work, for -- as she made these adult films, and kind of -- it harkens -- it feels very pre Me Too Movement.

REID: Yes.

COLLINS: And everything, you know that society now is kind of coalesced around in the way that we talk about these things and how different it is. So, I do you think that's a question of if they're trying to believe that this is something that will play with the jury? And Necheles is saying, "You were emphatic not once did I feel that I was in any sort of physical danger."

My sense after Tuesday was that this was going to be where the defense started because they were very upset with how Stormy Daniels portrayed her encounter or her sexual encounter with Donald Trump is kind of this -- a bit intimidating. She used the word blacked out. She talked about Keith Schiller being outside the door. They were really upset about that because they felt that it made -- it comes off to the jury that it was non-consensual.

The fact that we're now two hours into this, and they're just now revisiting this is notable. They're also talking about how long -- I mean, this is 17 years ago. She testified she had not seen Donald Trump or spoken to him since 2007.

COOPER: Yes. And Daniels says, yes, that is in fact. Let's go back to Dana in D.C. Dana?

BASH: Thanks, Anderson. And as we pick up listening to or watching, I should say, from our colleagues as they report what's happening in the courtroom from Stormy Daniels when she is questioned, as she has been for what? Like, all told at least two hours right?

ELIE HONIG, CNN SENIOR LEGAL ANALYST: Three and plus, if you add --

BASH: But --

HONIG: The last -- (INAUDIBLE) --

BASH: But even just this morning.

HONIG: Two-plus today. Yes.

BASH: And we were told -- our colleagues Kaitlan Collins and others were told that the defense would go longer with their cross. And that was accurate because we're seeing them go very, very long. And what just happened in the courtroom as Anderson was tossing over to us, and that's a long time ago, Necheles asks. Yes, ma'am, Daniels response. And this is the question about when the last time she spoke with Trump was, and it was 2007.

Laura, can you just kind of bring us up to speed as we have been getting into the nitty-gritty of the back and forth, and the questions that Necheles is asking her, and the overarching point that you think that she is trying to make here?

[11:50:08]

LAURA COATES, CNN ANCHOR & CHIEF LEGAL ANALYST: Well, the point of cross more broadly, is to try to undermine the credibility of the witness.

BASH: Right. And is she trying to that? COATES: And she's trying to do that. However, you can be too expansive in your attempt. And only just now, 11:49, right, that she's finally asked Daniels if she knows what Trump is charged with. Now, it's an interesting question that comes from her because she spent most of the cross-examination focusing on the -- her films that she has done, focusing on details that were innocuous about when they had dinner or otherwise, they're asking her questions about his golf scores and beyond, trying to talk about the number of partners she had in these films. And --

BASH: What's the significance of this question --

COATES: The significance of this -- of the moment now is this is why we're here about documents. It doesn't actually matter whether or not you can prove that Stormy Daniels had a sexual encounter with Donald Trump. The point is whether he believes she would go public with that allegation, and make a payment, falsify business records to cover that up in time for the election, and that -- and she asked -- the response to questions, I don't really understand. I'm just here to answer the questions asked of me.

There's a lot of indictments because we're struggling -- remember, in jury selection, at least one juror was unaware that he had multiple indictments against him. So, there's that moment in time. But again, refocusing. If you're the prosecution -- and if you're the defense rallying of what her -- you're not going to think about the business records.

OK, first of all, let me just apply for a second. OK, this is where they should have started today. And the defense should have started with, OK, you have no idea about the business records, you don't know how they were written, you don't know anything about it, but --

BASH: So, now we're getting into the heart of the matter.

COATES: Now, we're getting into what and how they can undermine, or it doesn't matter if she -- if she actually had sex. What matters is whether he knew. And she says -- she responds, I know nothing about his business records. Why would I? That's the point to attack her. That's the biggest and strongest moment of defense to say, we're just here --

BASH: And see.

COATES: For that moment. Yes.

(CROSSTALK)

BASH: Cross-examination of Stormy Daniels is over.

HONIG: So, that's how you do it, right? And there was a criticism of a defense where we used to work with all the time. We used to say, rather than going for the jugular, this guy goes for every single capillary. And why do you think we're doing this warning, right? There are ways you can go right to the heart of the matter. Instead, they're picking what was his golf score. Who cares?

BASH: But -- yes. But -- OK. But there's a person who is at that defense table --

HONIG: Yes.

BASH: Who goes for every single capillary, Michael.

MICHAEL DUBKE, FORMER TRUMP WHITE HOUSE COMMUNICATIONS DIRECTOR: Yes.

BASH: And that -- but that was about, the long and winding road that got us to those last couple of questions that Laura said were the crucial critical questions about the charges against Donald Trump and what she actually knows about the charges. It led through lots and lots of sort of details, character assassination, and undermining her. And that's because --

DUBKE: So, it sounds like too many.

BASH: Donald Trump was upset about what happened in there today.

DUBKE: And it sounds like to me, they got back to the second jury that I was talking about. The jury that's actually in the courtroom. To go to your point, they got back to the facts in this case, and whether or not you wanted them to lead with it, I think they decided to end with it and leave that in the -- in the jurors' mind. So, this -- that, you know, from that perspective, I still am thinking they're playing the two audiences here.

BASH: And I'm curious to see what the redirect is going to be, assuming there will be one that the prosecutors are going to come back at her or --

COATES: They could use the -- they could use the defense's own elicited testimony. If you're a smart prosecutor, you want to get up there as quickly -- not as quickly as the defense is gone. You can get up there and say, so you wanted money, you were talking nothing to get it. You wanted money from him, and you knew that you had to get before the election. And they paid you, right? That's it. That's the -- that is where she heard knowledge of this case ends.

HONIG: I think they also may try to go back to the core of the testimony and basically say to her, look, you were asked a bunch of questions about what you ate for dinner and that kind of stuff. Have you ever varied in the many times you've told this story over the years about the fact that you and Donald Trump had sex in that room in 2006? And she'll say, that has always been a core of what I've said. I've been consistent with that. Bringing back to the core of it.

HUNT: And the fact that this conference, it seems to be still going on, right? I mean, it does seem to be taking some degree of time. I mean, what could be going on?

BASH: And the jurors are watching the bench comprehended.

HONIG: They're probably talking about the scope of the redirect because technically, this has to be within the scope of cross- examination. So, there may be some area that prosecutors want to go into, and their argument about is this fair game.

BASH: Yes. As they argue and discuss what's next, we are going to sneak in another quick break. The cross-examination just wrapping up. Inside the court, Susan Necheles admitting under oath that she had -- excuse me. Under the questioning of Susan Necheles, Stormy Daniels admitted under oath she has no direct knowledge of how involved or not Donald Trump was in orchestrating the alleged hush money scheme to silence her in the closing weeks of the 2016 campaign. You are watching CNN's special live coverage.

[11:55:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

COOPER: Three hours and six minutes. That is how long Trump's attorneys spent cross-examining Stormy Daniels. Pressing her on the gaps between what she has said in the past and what she said this week, told them and the jury under oath.

I'm Anderson Cooper in New York. You're watching CNN's special live coverage. Inside court, the redirect of the adult film actress is now underway. The prosecutor -- the prosecutor, Susan Hoffinger, asked you are also having to take the money.