Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Live Event/Special

Trump's Attorneys Try to Discredit Stormy Daniels' Testimony In Hush Money Trial; CNN Anchor Details Scene Inside Trump Hush Money Trial; The Biggest Moments of Stormy Daniels' Testimony Today; Next Trial Witness Is Trump Org Employee Rebecca Manochio Who Cut & Issued Checks. Aired 1:30-2p ET

Aired May 09, 2024 - 13:30   ET

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

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[13:31:10]

BRIANNA KEILAR, CNN HOST: We are waiting for court to resume in the first criminal trial of a former president.

Earlier, Donald Trump watched his attorneys try to discredit the woman who is at the heart of this hush money trial, Stormy Daniels, the adult film actress.

They tried highlighting what they argue are inconsistencies in her account of the alleged sexual encounter with Trump in 2006. He still says the affair never happened.

Joining us now is George Grasso, who was a New York criminal court judge for more than a decade. He retired from the Queens County Supreme Court.

Judge, you have been there inside of the courtroom watching. What has stood out to you today?

GEORGE GRASSO, RETIRED JUDGE, QUEENS COUNTY SUPREME COURT: Well, what stood out to me is that Donald Trump's defense attorney cross- examining Stormy Daniels, Susan Necheles, really did her homework.

She did exactly what a good defense attorney is supposed to do. She looked at prior statements. She searched for inconsistencies. And she had -- she had some.

In particular, there was a lot of questioning about Stormy Daniels giving an interview to some kind of a gossip magazine in 2011 where she appeared to allude to having actually having dinner in the penthouse with Donald Trump at the time of the alleged event and the sexual encounter.

She testified very clearly Tuesday on direct examination that there was no dinner, there was hours of conversation, and no dinner.

So a defense attorney's job is to try and expose inconsistencies like that to get the jury to start to think or possibly doubt, well, if you can't trust her on that kind of a detail, what about the other details?

But did they go that far that they'll call her and that the jury would be likely to call her entire testimony in doubt over that issue? I don't know. But the D.A. -- the defense attorney certainly did the hard job.

Another point that was picked up on where they left off Tuesday on cross-examination was whether or not Stormy Daniels was interested in money in connection with the non-disclosure agreement that she had an attorney negotiate where she received the $130,000.

She continues to state her prime reason wasn't money. It was trying to stay safe, based on something else she spoke about, about being threatened back in 2011, although, by her own admission, she never reported this threat to the police or made a timely report.

So that was all done. And you know, it was -- it was quite interesting and she -- the jury has a lot to think about here.

KEILAR: Yes, they sure do. I mean, Susan Necheles really trying to go after, as you said, the credibility and the motivation of Stormy Daniels.

A lot of focus on some I guess rather salacious details. Her -- the number of films that she was in as an adult film star. Some of it seemed a little bit maybe more than she needed to do, according to many legal observers who are watching.

And I wonder how the jury was reacting to that, Judge, and what you think about it?

GRASSO: Well, certainly, from what I could see of this jury, and I do glance at them, I'm taking a lot of notes, but I do look up and glance at the jury when I can. And they are very, very intense. They are intensely following this.

[13:34:59]

As far as the delving into Stormy Daniels' background in the adult film industry? I mean, when you have a witness of this importance, who, by her own admission, has been in and directed hundreds of adult films, you would kind of expect this type of cross examination.

And nothing really hit me as being particularly inappropriate there. I think what's -- what's to be expected. The jury has got an individual's freedom at stake. And the individual is presumed to be innocent. So they did their job.

Another thing, Susan Necheles that was important is she was calling into question, when Stormy Daniels, testified on direct, you know, she testified to things like having a blackout, you know, and not really being sure, the blood leaving her veins.

Well, that was another area where the defense went right into, well, you know, you've spoken about this case in the past. You've given interviews about this case in the past. Why are you just talking about this now?

And Stormy Daniels, I think felt -- came across kind of defensive on those points. Now, I'm not saying that -- that the witness' credibility was totally undermined. And I don't believe it was.

You know, the underlying major issue here is whether or not the jury is going to believe, notwithstanding some inconsistencies, maybe some serious inconsistencies, did she entirely fabricate the sexual encounter that she described in some detail with Defendant Trump in the penthouse suite?

I don't think they went so far as to do that.

And another thing that they didn't touch much or couldn't really do anything about because of all the documentary support for the people's case and Stormy Daniels' testimony on this is the intensity of the negotiations for the non-disclosure agreement in October of 2016.

After the NDA, after the "Hollywood Access" (sic) came out. So that part wasn't touched.

So net, net, net, the defense did what they needed to do today. But I think that people still have a -- have a witness who did what she needed to do.

And will put the jury in a position down the road, if they choose to think that Mr. Trump is culpable of falsifying business records to cover up this particular story in conjunction with the $130,000 payment.

KEILAR: Yes.

GRASSO: I think she did her job and the bulk this remains in place.

KEILAR: As you said, they have a lot to think about. And certainly, they are doing that on this lunch break, which should be wrapping up here in not too long.

Judge George Grasso, thank you so much. We appreciate your perspective as you've watched from inside the courtroom. Thanks.

GRASSO: Thank you. Great to be with you.

KEILAR: The cross-examination of Stormy Daniels was originally expected to be on the shorter side, but it turned out that it dragged on for hours after a last-minute change in strategy on the part a former President Trump's lawyers. So did it work?

Next, we'll have some new reaction from the Trump camp as our special coverage continues right after this.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[13:42:38]

KEILAR: Welcome back to our breaking news coverage of the historic Donald Trump hush money criminal trial. I'm Brianna Keilar in Washington. Jake Tapper is in New York, where he just left the courtroom and is now joining us.

Jake, tell us, as you've been watching all morning, what has really stood out to you with this big testimony from Stormy Daniels today?

JAKE TAPPER, CNN ANCHOR & HOST, "THE LEAD": So obviously, a very aggressive questioning by Susan Nicholes (sic) -- I'm sorry -- Necheles of Stormy Daniels.

Trump's attorney basically trying to get across that Stormy Daniels is an opportunist, has made a lot of money off of this alleged encounter with Donald Trump.

Also had an insinuation that she -- not an insinuation, an accusation that she made the whole thing up, that it never happened. And that was interesting.

There was evidence she introduced the "Make America Horny Again" tour that she went on. And the fact that she has profited.

And now, when the prosecution came back on redirect, Stormy Daniels was asked, was it -- on the whole, was it net positive or net negative for you? She said it was a net negative. But I thought that was -- that was interesting.

Stormy Daniels conducted herself, she was very precise. She would occasionally cost -- call Ms. Necheles "ma'am." Ms. Necheles would -- you know, did you not -- did you not say, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. And Stormy Daniels would say, you're going to have to show me where I said that.

And actually, one time, for instance -- I'm sorry to use this language and this is where we are as a country. But, OK, one time, Stormy Daniels made a reference to "flushing the orange turd." That was a tweet that she did.

And what the defense attorney had extrapolated was that Stormy Daniels was saying she was -- I'm paraphrasing here -- but integral to sending Donald Trump to jail. And isn't that what she meant when she referred to "flushing the orange turd."

And it was that kind of thing where Stormy Daniels said -- Stormy Daniels would say, no, I didn't say "integral." I didn't say "jail." I just said, "flushing the orange turd." And that was the kind of back- and-forth.

You know, the jury was paying attention throughout. I think they were a little less alert during the testimony from the woman who handled FedExing for the Trump Organization. But they were definitely paying a lot of attention.

[13:45:05]

You couldn't see really any reaction in terms of, like, tittering or anything like that with some -- like the Stormy Daniels impeachment candle or whatever that was called -- indictment candle. Nobody -- everybody in the jury box seemed to be taking it pretty seriously.

KEILAR: It's so -- you have to think when you're watching this, Jake. It's playing out on multiple tracks.

Of course, there's the legal, which this is a criminal case. This is so important. And it's fraught for former President Trump.

There's also the political. And we've seen how he plays that.

But there's also the emotional, right? Just how he responds emotionally to what he's been hearing from Stormy Daniels.

And I wonder if, compared to what you saw, the questioning on cross- examination, or what you heard of it, our colleagues reporting it on Tuesday, if you think that there was a change in tone today compared to Tuesday that may have reflected some of his reaction to how she -- to what she said on Tuesday.

TAPPER: Well, I mean, I don't know where they were headed before and I wasn't in the courtroom on Tuesday. So it's difficult to me for me to make a complete answer -- comparison.

But I will say they definitely were driving at -- to the extent that they were allowed to within the parameters set by the judge, they were definitely driving at, the defense attorneys, the accusation that she made the whole thing up.

That Donald Trump was just one celebrity of many at this golf tournament in Lake Tahoe, and that none of it happened, and she's still just been trying to make money.

They pointed out that some of her story had changed from interview to interview. Whether it was "Vogue" or "In Touch," or Anderson or whatever.

On redirect, the prosecution would say -- would point out ways in which it wasn't as stark those differences as the defense attorneys were making it seem.

But I certainly thought the defense attorneys were effective. I don't think that they made their case that this didn't happen.

But I certainly think they made their case that the story, since 2006, as -- I don't think would be strange for anybody telling any story -- has gone through different permutations, especially as different news organizations have told it in their ways.

KEILAR: How important is this next witness who were going to hear more from after the lunch break, Rebecca Manochio, who is the former bookkeeper, current Trump Org employee?

Because she's a bit of a link when it comes to the fact that this is a falsifying records case and there has to be linked to the former president for prosecution to succeed.

TAPPER: Yes, this woman is something of a cipher. I think she's an executive assistant at the Trump Organization.

I think she made a comment along the lines of she was kind of discovered at a grocery store and then ended up working for the Trump Organization as a personal assistant.

And then worked her way up to executive assistant and basically is in charge of FedExing things to different people. And so she is the one -- because the Trump Organization -- I'm sorry -- the Trump legal team refuses to stipulate anything.

They will not stipulate that Donald Trump wrote these five books. They will not stipulate that Donald Trump is in the "Access Hollywood" video, et cetera, et cetera.

The prosecution has to then go and prove a whole bunch of things, including a check being sent or that's being sent to endorse or I'm being sent to sign. So we're going through this process.

This young woman was there. And again, it was -- she was giving -- she's there under subpoena. She was basically giving, where she could, yes-or-no answers, as I'm sure she was counseled to do.

And basically, she is just establishing that things were sent to Washington, D.C., from her, through the Trump Organization to Washington.

But specifically to Keith Schiller, Trump's former bodyguard, and then he became a White House official, to his home address for Donald Trump presumably to sign, a check for him to sign. So she is providing some of the just logistical details about this.

But like I said, I think the jury, god bless them, didn't seem as interested, based on their eye contact that they were making with the witnesses or how much they seem to be looking down versus looking ahead, didn't seem as caught up in at all.

KEILAR: Yes. Understandable.

And, look, if the Trump team did stipulate some things, this would be a shorter trial. We should remember that as well. As the former president says, it's keeping him off the campaign trail even as he doesn't use his break days to campaign.

[13:50:04]

Jake, thank you so much. Obviously will be back with you here shortly.

Court is just minutes away from resuming. Ahead, after a morning of contentious testimony, testy exchanges, we're going to break down the biggest moments of Stormy Daniels on the stand in the Donald Trump hush money trial. So stay with us.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

KEILAR: Minutes from now, we are going to be hearing from Rebecca Manochio, a bookkeeper at the Trump Organization, who worked closely with several key figures in this case.

Her testimony coming after Stormy Daniels was on the stand for more than six hours over the course of two days, today and Tuesday.

So let's break down her testimony with CNN senior legal analyst, Elie Honig.

Elie, take us through this.

ELIE HONIG, CNN SENIOR LEGAL ANALYST: Yes, Brianna, for all the salacious detail that the jury heard today on direct and then cross- examination, really, the cross-examination comes down to three main themes.

First of all Donald Trump's attorneys tried to establish that Stormy Daniels has bias. They came right out, the very first thing they ask Stormy Daniels, "Am I correct that you hate President Trump?" She made no bones about it. She said, "Yes, yes, I do." She said there's good reason. But the defense is establishing that she has bias.

They also used some of her social media posts to sort of bring some life to that, including -- people can read it -- but she calls Donald Trump the, quote, "orange turd." She wants to flush them down the toilet. Speaks pretty viscerally, I think, to the jury.

[13:55:02]

The second main theme that the defense tried to establish through their cross-examination is that Stormy Daniels has made money off this. She has financial motives here.

And they gave us some specific examples. First of all, Stormy Daniels testified today on cross-examination she made $800,000 for a book advance on her book called "Full Disclosure."

She, of course, made the $130,000 in the hush money payment. And then $125,000 for a TV deal with NBC.

And then, the final point that Donald Trump's attorneys tried to bring out on cross-examination is that Stormy Daniels has made prior inconsistent statements, in conflict to some extent, with her testimony in front of the jury.

To that -- to that end, they used prior statements that Stormy Daniels had given to various media outlets, including her interview with Anderson Cooper.

Now the discrepancies here were fairly minor. Did they order dinner? Did they eat dinner? Who made the initial introduction, Donald Trump himself or his bodyguard? To me, sort of picking at the margins.

The better argument I think about her prior inconsistent statements is this signed statement that Stormy Daniels swore, signed in 2018 where she wrote, "I am not denying this affair because I was paid hush money. I am denying this affair because it never happened." Now, Stormy Daniels testified she only signed that because she felt pressured. But again, that goes to the third point of the cross- examination that she has made prior inconsistent statements.

KEILAR: Bottom line, how did Daniels relate to the charges here?

HONIG: Yes. So this was actually the last question that prosecutors asked, that Trump's defense team asked on cross-examination. They asked, "What do you know about Donald Trump's business records?" Which is the charge here. She said, "I know nothing about his business records. No. Why would I?"

I think the bigger picture here, though, the prosecution called Stormy Daniels because they want to put a face on this case. They wanted to give the jury the specifics about the incident, the sex in 2006 that really led to everything that follows.

KEILAR: The alleged sex. I think they're going to have a hard time, we should say, Elie, the defense, arguing that it didn't happen. I'm not sure where the jury is on that. But at this point, Donald Trump is still alleging it didn't happen.

OK. So take us through this new witness, Rebecca Manochio, and why her testimony is important?

HONIG: Yes. So take a big, deep breath now. We're off of Stormy Daniels and on to Rebecca Manochio.

She worked within the Trump Organization. We've heard some of these other names. So Allen Weisselberg was the CFO. We're not going to hear from him at this trial. He's in prison. He wouldn't testify anyway.

We heard earlier -- the jury heard earlier from Jeffrey McConney, in the Accounting Department, and now Rebecca Manochio.

And what she is doing walked the jury through the process of getting these checks cut and issued.

So just to set the scene here, Michael Cohen pays off Stormy Daniels. And then in the months that follow, Michael Cohen is reimbursed through a series of checks issued by the Trump Organization.

And Ms. Manochio is talking about how she was based here in New York at the Trump Tower. She would FedEx the checks down to D.C. At this point, Donald Trump's the president. He's in the White House.

And then they would get FedExed back to her, sometimes 10 and 15 at a time, signed with that distinctive signature by Donald Trump's.

So she's so it's showing the jury the exact chain of custody of exactly how these reimbursements happened.

KEILAR: All right. Elie, thank you for taking us through all of that.

Court is set to resume here in a matter of minutes. We'll have more of our coverage ahead from here in Washington and also from New York with Jake Tapper, who has spent this day in that courtroom and has so many details to share with us.

We'll have much more ahead. Stay with us.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)