Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Live Event/Special

Stormy Daniels Testifies at Trump Hush Money Trial; Defense Strategy Centers on Discrediting Witnesses; Mystery Woman Rebecca Manochio Testifies Reluctantly; Prosecution Focuses on Establishing Financial Transactions; Trial Highlights Trump's Personal Involvement in Hush Money Payments. Aired 2-2:30p ET

Aired May 09, 2024 - 14:00   ET

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

[14:00:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BRIANNA KEILAR, CNN HOST: It is the top of the hour, and we are back with our special breaking news coverage of former President Trump's hush money trial. I'm Brianna Keilar in Washington. Jake Tapper is outside of the courthouse in New York. He has been inside the courthouse all day and any moment now, a junior bookkeeper who worked for the Trump organization as a bookkeeper, still working for the organization, will be returning to the stand for cross-examination. Earlier, we heard from adult film star Stormy Daniels who's the woman at the center of this criminal case. The defense spent more than three hours questioning Daniels today, pressing her for gaps between what she said in the past and what she said this week under oath, Jake.

JAKE TAPPER, CNN HOST: That's right. I was in the courtroom this morning until lunch break. Stormy Daniels pushed back, at times appeared a touch combative, as Trump's attorney tried to establish some of the ways Stormy Daniels has gained financially from going public with her story. Just before court broke for lunch, the defense raised issues with Judge Merchan, including a renewed motion for a mistrial. Merchan said the court's going to review the matters when the jury is dismissed later this afternoon. With us now is CNN chief legal affairs correspondent Paula Reed and CNN chief domestic correspondent Phil Mattingly. So, Paula, let me start with you. And let's start with this mystery woman that we don't even have a photograph of her, Rebecca Manochio. Before the break, she testified about, how she handled Trump's personal cheques, how the process worked. Why is she an important witness for the prosecution? She's there under protest. She's subpoenaed. She's giving one word answers. Quite honestly, no offense to her, she doesn't seem exactly like anybody who came up with or hatched any sort of scheme. She's the Fedexer.

PAULA REID, CNN CHIEF LEGAL AFFAIRS CORRESPONDENT: Yes, she is not believed to be engaged in the conspiracy. But the reason she's being called is because the defense refuses to stipulate. They refuse to even agree that, yes, this is the way the cheques got from the Trump Organization to the White House once Trump became president. That's a defense strategy, right? Bog the jurors down in boring, tedious testimony, random witnesses. So she is not going to make a break in this case, but she is explaining to the jury how these cheques went, again, from the Trump Organization to the White House. As I understand it from this testimony, it's not even clear she is specifically testifying about the checks that eventually went to Michael Cohen, just generally about the process.

TAPPER: Although there was a time that she said she did send a FedEx to Keith Shiller, Trump's former bodyguard who was a White House official at that time, sent them to Keith Shiller's home address, which she acknowledged was not normal. What else do you think-so that was the prosecution establishing that. What is the defense going to try to do?

REID: I'm not sure how interested they're really going to be in her testimony. It's certainly not going to be what we saw this morning. We had a blockbuster morning with Stormy Daniels, a testimony about sort of sex and her career and all of this and we expect that the next murky witness will be Michael Cohen but right now the jury needs to eat their vegetables and hear about this sort of process because it is it is helpful to the prosecution in proving their case. But again, I don't think the defense is going to want to do much with her. The cheques went from point A to point B.

TAPPER: And Phil on to Stormy Daniels the defense repeatedly brought up what she does for a living which is take off her clothes for people and there was a mention of the fact that her audience is now different her fans are now different. Fewer middle-aged white men, more gay couples, members of the resistance. The so-called resistance. Also they talked about how she makes a career out of makeup stories about sex which they try to suggest is what she was doing about Donald Trump. How do you think this plays in front of a jury?

PHIL MATTINGLY, CNN CHIEF DOMESTIC CORRESPONDENT: I think what I have been fascinated with and learning what our reporter saw in the room, you were one of them and I actually plan to ask you about it. Flip the script a little bit. But it was such a different tilt. Tuesday cross- examination was aggressive, right? There's no question about it.

[14:05:09]

And they were clearly trying to frame her as trying to basically just do this for money. That was exactly why she was doing it. That was what was driving kind of her entire narrative and way of thinking. This was so much more about what she did for a living. This was so much more about, as you noted, her fans, that not only is she doing it for money, but what she's doing for money. And how does that make you feel, jury? It seemed like how the approach actually was. But it was also striking how Stormy Daniels responded throughout. And you kind of tweaked how it was combative. You said a little bit, somewhat.

TAPPER: I didn't think it was that good. The questions were rough, but I mean, she was insinuating that Stormy Daniels made it all up and is just doing it for money. But Stormy Daniels would just say things like, well, you know, I have to make a living. Everybody likes money. I have to you know, I have to sell my products. I mean, it was she was rather matter of fact about it. MATTINGLY: Did you feel like and again, we were just going by the transcript where our reporters in the room were sending us. She seemed to be very quick to respond. The retort about what you raised in terms of making up stories about sex. I thought her response was her clapback, which I can't remember off the top of my head was actually quite sharp. But it didn't seem like she got rattled at all. It didn't seem like during her initial testimony, she was going very, very fast, seemed kind of all over the place at some point. She seemed to be very much focused. And together, what was your sense of things?

TAPPER: Yeah, I mean, I think that the defense successfully portrayed her as a woman that seeks opportunities to make money. Not necessarily. But I don't know if they convinced the jury that she therefore made it all up. She didn't seem rattled. She had obviously been coached that if somebody says you said something and you don't know that you said it, ask to see the quote. That happened at least two or three times. So I thought she was pretty well prepared. But again, I mean, look, I'm not comparing Stormy Daniels and Donald Trump, but they both have brands. They both look for opportunities to make money. They both seek ways to have an edge in public life. And in that way, they were similar. And they certainly portrayed her as that. And she had no problem acknowledging that's who she is.

MATTINGLY: Real quick, the through line of their relationship to the extent it existed and continued over a period of time through conversations. Not more sexual dalliances was an opportunity to make money. It was business. It was the apprentice, dangling the apprentice, the possibility of being in the apprentice. So I think that tracks.

TAPPER: And I think that that also was an opportunity that the defense took, which was, she was obviously disappointed. She wanted to be on the apprentice that never happened. She thought Donald Trump lied to her about that. We'll see how much more they play, play up to that idea that maybe this is vengeance or whatever for that. But that certainly came out in cross today. Paula Reid and Phil Mattingly, nice talking to you. Brianna.

KEILAR: All right, Jake, thank you so much. Let's talk a little bit more now about this with our panelists. Stormy Daniels spent over six hours on the stand, and I think one of the things I've noticed as we talk about this, and it's interesting because there is almost a split of men and women on the jury, is that male and female observers may be having, and by observers, I mean people who are reading what is happening because we can't actually see it, right? We're getting reports. But I think people are raising different questions and maybe experiencing some of the testimony differently, and I wonder how that might play in to what the jury has seen. Audie, have you noticed that?

AUDIE CORNISH, CNN CORRESPONDENT: It's hard to say. I think it's interesting because the whole idea of this is that this is information, this kind of story is something that we're not going to be able to see. And so I think it's interesting because they did not want public, and they did not want male or female observers having this exact discussion in 2016. And so what was the motivation? The Trump side. Yeah, the Trump side. So I think it's more like looking more at what we're talking about in that context, which is, did we hear anything over the last couple of days that would speak to a motivation that's not a motivation, that's not about the election, right? That's not about protecting a reputation that you feel like could be proactively harmed in advance of the campaign.

This is, I mean, not my opinion, but sort of where this prosecution has put us in terms of trying to figure out what we're hearing. So when she's up there, it's not about judging her, right? It's about like, oh, okay, she's saying something that seems so bad, people would scramble around to try and fix it, and then going from there. And the problem is, she's been telling this story for a decade. So there's lots of years to poke around and figure out where there are inconsistencies.

GLORIA BORGER, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL ANALYST: Well, I think there is a way to judge her in the sense that the defense is trying to say that she's an extortionist, and that she just was trying to get, that this was her issue--

(CROSSTALK)

CORNISH: But is the issue extortion or how you try to pay the extortionist?

BORGER: Well --

(CROSSTALK)

CORNISH: Like, this is the part where, right, now we're listening to accountants, right?

(CROSSTALK)

BORGER: That's right. That's right.

CORNISH: Because it gets a little tricky.

[14:10:09]

BORGER: But that the whole thing started because she wanted the money as opposed to the fact that Donald Trump wanted to give her money so she would be quiet because of the campaign. And so, you know, you have to decide how believable she is and what her motivation was. You know, they portrayed her as greedy and crazy in a way and dishonest and all the rest. But what came first, the chicken or the egg, right?

I mean, who wanted to cover it up first? Was it Michael Cohen saying, uh oh we got to do this? Or was it Stormy saying, oh, this is a real opportunity here. I'm going to extort them for$130 000. And, you know, so the defense has to kind of say, well, she's an extortionist. And the prosecution has to sort of tie it all together and say that Michael Cohen did it because he was worried she was going to open her mouth about it.

ELLIOT WILLIAMS, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: You know Brianna, it's an important-the gender question that you've raised is really important one, because we all, including jurors, attorneys, everybody brings their own background, whatever you want to call it, biases, feelings into it. One of the more powerful things that I read recently was a statement about testimony that Stormy Daniels is given on Tuesday, saying every woman has had a what did I do to misread this situation moment? Right. Because the questioning was and the questioning, if it wasn't explicit, certainly opened the door to what were you doing in that room if you had a problem with what was going on? And she sort of said, well, you know, how did I misread this?

BORGER: Well, it shows vulnerability, doesn't it? And that and that, you know, she was a tough person on the stand, but she was also vulnerable and blamed herself.

WILLIAMS: But also just to Brianna's question, I think men and women probably hear that question--

(CROSSTALK)

BORGER: Right

WILLIAMS: And heard that line of testimony very differently.

KEILAR: Can I and I wonder, though, as his attorneys have spent so much time in the nitty gritty of the particulars about the sexual encounter that he still says did not happen. But they seem very concerned about making sure that let's just be very clear that this was consensual. Right. But it didn't happen in their minds or in their clients mind. So explain sort of the paper bag you talk yourself out of on that.

ELLIE HONIG, CNN SENIOR LEGAL ANALYST: So the cleaner way to have done this is just to confront Stormy Daniels with the signed statement that we just looked at on the wall in 2018 where she said none of this ever happened. You're not going to get Stormy Daniels to say, oh, yeah, you're right. I made it all up. Right. That's just not going to happen. And I think the reason they're focused on the details of this, which is not what I would have done at the last place, I would want to take the jury if I was Donald Trump's lawyers, is back to Tahoe, back to that hotel room. But I think, first of all, as we've had reporting here on CNN, they're trying to appease their clients, perhaps political, perhaps personal desires.

The other thing is, and this happens in a lot of trials, the further you can drag a case into the muck, the farther you can drag this case away from the actual charges in the indictment almost always inures to the defendant's benefit. Because any time you have the jury going, why are we getting into what did they eat? Who was wearing what pajamas? This is a falsification of business records. The case were five steps away from it. Even if the defense has dragged it there, usually that's good for the defense. You want the jury going, where are we?

(CROSSTALK)

CORNISH: Well, arguably it was born there, so it's sort of hard to--

HONIG: Yes, you're right. CORNISH: I mean, if anything, I think the falsifying of business records has elevated it from what a lot of people have long time perceived as something that's fundamentally tabloidy and kind of yucky.

HONIG: And another common dynamic is prosecutors always want to keep it neat, clean to the point. And defense lawyers often try to muck it up. That is a tried and true strategy that not often, but sometimes succeeds.

KEILAR: And before lunch, the defense is raising three new issues. We should mention there's a renewed motion for mistrial. There's a motion to preclude testimony from Karen McDougal, and there is an issue related to the gag order. The judge says the issue is going to be taken up after the jury leaves at the end of the day. Can you just explain to us a little bit what's happening here and what you may be expecting?

WILLIAMS: Well, we'll see what the what the basis for the mistrial is. It's important for the defense to keep raising motions for mistrial so that they can preserve the right to do so if they lose--

(CROSSTALK)

KEILAR: On the basis of which they may --

WILLIAMS: It could be on the basis of anything, could be on the basis of witness testimony, questioning that the prosecutors went too far on. It could be a witness that's called. So, for instance, if Karen McDougal is called, I'll get to that in a second. They could say that that was so prejudicial that it shouldn't have ever come up in the first place. My guess is that in the fight over Karen McDougal, is it's related conduct to what happened with Stormy Daniels, but not the same conduct. And there's this concept of prejudicial testimony that when you bring in past acts of an individual that aren't the thing that he's charged with right here, it can be something that taints the trial and gives the defendant an unfair trial.

[14:15:09]

And it's something that the defense ought to raise. It's important for them to raise it. As I said, to put it on the record so that they can bring it up on appeal later.

KEILAR: All right, we'll be looking for that. Everyone, thank you so much. If you could stand by for me, testimony is set to resume here any minute. As a Trump Organization employee who was a bookkeeper and instrumental in how these cheques that were signed off on by Donald Trump to pay Michael Cohen, how those went back and forth from New York to the White House, she will be returning to the stand. Our special coverage continuing all hour. We'll be right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[14:20:09] TAPPER: Court is just moments away from beginning again. A few minutes ago, Donald Trump walked back into the courtroom. Trump's defense team today repeatedly attacking the credibility of porn star and director Stormy Daniels in cross-examination. Especially by targeting her work in the adult film industry and how she has profited from this encounter with Mr. Trump, alleged encounter, I should say. One exchange between Trump's attorney and Stormy Daniels went like this. Susan Necheles Trump's attorney, says, you have a lot of experience of making phony stories about sex appear to be, and Stormy Daniels responded, Wow, that's not how I would put it. The sex in the films is very much real, just like what happened to me in that room. The sex is real. That's why it's pornography, unquote. Kristen Holmes is with me now. Kristen, you're the one that broke the story that Trump's attorney changed their strategy and decided to cross-examine Stormy Daniels longer than they had intended to, and to perhaps be more aggressive. Did they succeed?

KRISTEN HOLMES, CNN NATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Well, I'm told by two people close to the former president that they think that they did. That's Susan Necheles set out to be aggressive, to really pin down Stormy Daniels, and that they feel as though she did. And obviously, as we saw, and you were in the room, but as I read through the transcript, there were times when Stormy Daniels couldn't even get an answer out. The judge actually had to intervene. That was Susan Necheles being that aggressive bulldog that Donald Trump wants her to be. Now, it wasn't just about the fact that they wanted to go more into Stormy Daniels, but they were also trying to poke holes in her story. As we've heard Kara Scannell say, often the defense will wait until what they actually hear during the prosecution's testimony or questioning, and then try to reframe their questioning. And that's really what they were trying to do here.

You saw Susan Necheles over and over again saying exactly what Stormy Daniels had said in her testimony to the prosecution, and then looking back at old interviews, looking back at old articles, at old speaking engagements, everything that she had said in the past, trying to undermine her story here. Now, of course, the big question is going to be how Donald Trump reacts, because we do know that one of the things that Donald Trump has been frustrated with when it comes to his lawyers in this case, he wants them to be more aggressive, to be that kind of attack dog, that pit bull. And talking to people close to him who are following along very closely, they felt as though she was today.

TAPPER: Well, she certainly was. I will say that one of the things I saw from being in court was Susan Necheles at one point said that Stormy Daniels had said that she was going to be integral to sending Trump to jail. And Stormy Daniels, who'd obviously prepared to challenge the defense attorneys when they said that she had said things that she didn't remember saying, said, where did I say that? Can you show me where I said that? And she brought up a tweet where Stormy Daniels were a fan of Trump, referred to as Stormy Daniels as a human toilet. And she said something along the lines of that's why you need me to flush down the orange turd. I'm just quoting court testimony today. And I mean that. And she said, I don't. I don't see the word integral. I don't see the word jail. Susan Necheles was taking some liberties. I don't know if that might have cost Susan Necheles with the jury. But that's the risk when you're going so aggressively after somebody. And also focused also on some client service. Donald Trump wanted her to be aggressive.

HOLMES: Yeah. Look, I think that that's going to be the ultimate issue here is what the jury actually took away from this. You know, if she's trying to please Donald Trump, if she's trying to be an attack dog, if she's trying to poke holes in the credibility of Stormy Daniels, it really only matters what the jury took away from that. And it's just not going to be clear, obviously, until we get some kind of verdict here. But if the goal was to try and undermine her as a witness and poke holes, then she was doing what she set out to do. And again, I don't know. And I think none of us know how this plays inside the room. You know, we have heard the details went over. We were reading the details the way that we felt. We weren't in the room. How did people in the jury actually react to that?

TAPPER: Right

HOLMES: So in terms of the cross-examination, if what she was trying to get out of this was to try to poke holes in the story and please her client, I am told by the people around him they think that she did a good job.

TAPPER: She pleased her client.

HOLMES: Right. But again, at the end of the day, it's going to be how does the jury react? What do they think of that cross-examination?

(CROSSTALK)

TAPPER: Yeah. Look, I don't think that Susan Necheles crossed a line being in the room and watching the jurors. I don't think she crossed a line in terms of seeming as though she was cruel or bullying to Stormy Daniels.

[14:25:09]

But I do think that there is a, when you introduce, for example, one of the things that the prosecutor Hoffinger brought up was that, you know, there was a text exchange between Stormy Daniels' former attorney and Dylan Howard, the editor of the National Enquirer, in which Dylan had said something like, oh, I thought she said that didn't happen. And she didn't read the next remark, which Hoffinger two days later did, which is like something along the lines of, no, she never did that. And I think there is a credibility issue for a defense attorney if they're trying to defend their client and they're doing so in a way that actually makes them seem less than forthcoming.

HOLMES: Yeah. So two things I want to address. First, the part about you saying not crossing a line. I mean, there is a reason that they chose Susan Necheles to cross-examine Stormy Daniels instead of one of the men. I think one of the most telling parts to me was in that cross-examination yesterday or Tuesday, when she kind of stepped in when Stormy Daniels was laughing and saying, is this funny to you? Now, if a man had said that during cross-examination, it might have come off as more aggressive than having a woman do that. And that's part of why you choose who you choose to do cross-examination.

That was very clear in this line as well. Now, again, in terms of whether or not she crossed lines or pushed boundaries, I did speak to one attorney who said it would have been negligent for her to not go after her story in various ways. She had to go through, she had to go through all of those old interviews, all of those old transcripts. And even this attorney said the same thing, which is, did she do her job for a client? Yes, probably. How does it actually play with the jury? That we just don't know.

TAPPER: Well, it's just, I mean, I think the jurors always appreciate, they want to like, they want to feel like the lawyers are straight shooters, even though they're obviously advocates. Kristen Holmes, thanks so much. I'm told I got to take a break. We should note that the cross-examination of the woman who had been FedExing cheques to Washington DC on behalf of the Trump organization has ended. Prosecutors are about to call their next witness. We're waiting to see what's going to be. Our special coverage continues right after we squeeze in this quick break.