Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Live Event/Special

Testimony Resumes In Day 14 Of Trump Hush Money Trial; Harper Collins VP Testifies In Trump Hush Money Trial; Defense Attorney Attacks Daniels' Credibility, Truthfulness In Contentious Cross- Examination; Now: Ex-Oval Office Director Testifies In Trump Trial. Aired 2:30-3p ET

Aired May 09, 2024 - 14:30   ET

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

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[14:31:36]

JAKE TAPPER, CNN HOST: And we're back with our breaking news coverage of Donald Trump's criminal hush money trial.

Adult film actress and director, Stormy Daniels, testified for more than six hours over two days, Tuesday and today.

I was inside the courtroom for this morning's riveting testimony as attorneys did the cross-examination of her, then the redirect, then the cross and then the redirect of Stormy Daniels.

Joining me to discuss is former federal judge, John E. Jones III.

Judge Jones, thanks for joining.

I want to start with Stormy Daniels. She was, at times, explicit. She was, at times, crossing the line or at least the prosecution one in terms of details because, at least Tuesday, that was a thought.

How do you think Judge Merchan is handling the proceedings?

JOHN E. JONES III, FORMER FEDERAL JUDGE: I think he's doing really well, Jake. It's a tough go for the trial judge in a situation like this.

And what sometimes folks don't realize, it's not just responding to lawyers' objections, but the presiding judge has the responsibility to protect the record and to prevent prejudice if they can in a case.

And it's pretty evident that, on a couple of occasions, Judge Merchan, on his own initiative, decided that he was going to shut down certain areas that he thought were just a field of what was fair and fair game in the -- in terms of the interrogation of the witness.

TAPPER: Something interesting that happened this morning, before the jury came in, the defense team made it clear that they wanted to bring up the fact that Stormy Daniels had been arrested, something having to do with her ex-husband. Judge Merchan said, absolutely not, anybody can be arrested. The

question is whether now she's been convicted of a crime and she hasn't.

And then later in the testimony, when the defense attorney, Susan Necheles, was asking Stormy Daniels about her time as a medium, conjuring fourth ghosts and speaking to people's love -- dead loved ones, she seemed to try to re-introduce that arrest. Again, no conviction and Judge Merchan shut it down quickly.

But what is the purpose of that? Is the purpose of that to show it to the jury anyway, so that they see it, they see a little leg there and they wonder, huh, there might be stuff there that we don't know about.

I mean, why do that? Why so blatantly violate what the judge said earlier in the day?

JONES: You know, it's interesting, Jake, because what some advocates do is they ask questions that they know are objectionable and then, what that sometimes triggers is the judge saying, well, I'm going to instruct the jury to disregard that. They'll sustain an objection.

But of course, I always wondered when I was on the bench, you know, what -- you really hang a lantern on it. So the jury -- even though you tell me disregard it, they just heard the question and the implication of the question. It's pretty tricky by advocates to do it.

But essentially, what she's trying to do, that is Susan Necheles, is to get in bad acts. And to get a bad act for a witness, it has to be something that involves falsehood, that somehow implicates or damages the witness' credibility.

That arrest of that nature wouldn't do it. So Necheles is walking up to the line.

I also think that there's a performative aspect to what Necheles was doing today. It's pretty clear to me. I would think that she knows she stayed in too long probably in the cross-examination.

[14:35:03]

But remember, her client is telling her, you know, that he wants this witness dusted up pretty well. And I wonder how much of that was pushed by the client and how much was the lawyer's judgment.

TAPPER: There was another time -- and I know Susan Necheles is under pressure from her client to be aggressive against Stormy Daniels. And certainly undermining Stormy Daniels' credibility is an important part of the defense.

But there was a time that she characterized Stormy Daniels as having said something that she did not say. She said, you know, you said something along the lines of being integral to Donald Trump going to jail. And what it was, was a crude response to a tweet.

Somebody called her human toilet and Stormy Daniels said that's why in the perfect one to flush the orange turd or something like that.

Does that undermine --

(CROSSTALK)

TAPPER: -- an attorney? Does it undermine an attorney to be caught misrepresenting, saying you said this, and like what she said was gross and obviously objectionable. But it wasn't what she said it was.

JONES: Not only does it undermine the attorney at times, though, it just gets wearing I think for the jury. Remember, you know, the jury's trying to follow this. And after a while, if it devolves into schoolyard epithets, it's not really very useful to the jury.

You know, as the presiding judge -- and I think Judge Merchan, we don't know what happened at sidebar, but he may have done this. I would be prone to call the lawyers to sidebar and say, look, you know, you're too long on this witness and cross-examination.

You know, I would say sometimes, look, I've got the best seat in the house. I can see the jury. I can see that their attention is waning.

You're getting hurt here. I'm going to recommend that you get out of this witness. You're just in it too long at this point. This thing is deteriorating and you should stop.

Whether Judge Merchan did that, I don't know. But that's what I would be prone to do if that kind of nonsense started to emanate. Because that's not probative of anything. It doesn't really help the case.

TAPPER: Yes. I'm not sure we'll find out when they release the official transcripts later. We weren't allowed to -- we weren't privy to the multiple times that he called the seven or eight lawyers to the bench for approach. It was at least half a dozen times he did that.

Judge John Jones, thank you so much. Appreciate it.

We have a new witness on the stand right now. Her name is Tracey Menzies. She's a senior vice president of production and creative operations for Harper Collins. That's a publishing company.

She has a copy of Trump's book, "Think Big, Make It Happen in Business and Life," on the stand with her. The prosecution is questioning her right now.

We're going to have more updates after this.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[14:42:18]

BRIANNA KEILAR, CNN HOST: We are back now with CNN's special coverage of former President Trump's hush money criminal trial.

The defense is starting its cross-examination of its newest witness. Actually, they just finished. That's how quickly it went. Her name is Tracey Menzies. She's an SVP at Harper Collins. And she

was there were really just to testify to the validity of a book, or an excerpt in particular, from a book called "Think Big."

Let's talk to our panel about this.

It's an excerpt about loyalty, which I want to talk about here in a moment.

But first, let's zoom out. I think it's sort of time for one of those as we are here nearing the end of week four of this trial.

And tell us how close the prosecution has come to what they actually need to prove in, remember, what is a falsifying documents trial?

ELIE HONIG, CNN SENIOR LEGAL ANALYST: So I think the prosecution is much of the way to where they need to be, but not all the way there.

Let's go through what they have for sure. There is no question that Michael Cohen paid $130,000 to Stormy Daniels for -- as hush money to silence her.

There is, to me, little question that a substantial part of the motivation there was the campaign, the 2016 presidential campaign. Yes, there probably were other motivations as well, family. But it's quite clear that the campaign was a major motivation.

It is absolutely clear that Michael Cohen was then reimbursed $420,000 over the course of about a year. Donald Trump signed some, but not all of those reimbursement checks.

The big question though, is, A, why was it set up this way? Was it set up this way to try to disguise the fact that it was hush money payments? Michael Cohen, surely, will testify to that. And we've had some, I think, pretty convincing testimony to that effect.

And then really the heart of the matter is, did Donald Trump know, was he in on the idea of, let's try to make these payments, the reimbursements to Michael Cohen, look like legal fees so we can disguise the fact that we're really trying to pay Stormy Daniels to keep her quiet before the election?

And Michael Cohen is really the one who's going to have to bridge that gap. They've narrowed the gap, I think, substantially, but it is going to ride on Michael Cohen.

ELLIOT WILLIAMS, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: I think they've established that there was awareness of the 2016 campaign on the part of the "National Enquirer," on the part of any number of individuals in the Trump Organization, things like testimony from David Pecker.

There was no doubt that we were in support of and the President Trump campaign or that I would be the eyes and ears for the campaign. There was clearly awareness of it.

Now this idea of a specific nexus between the former president and telling people or directing people beyond insinuation to falsify these records for the purpose of benefiting the campaign.

As a matter of common sense, maybe it's sort of -- as Elie was talking about a moment ago, perhaps people can get there in their minds, but in terms of establishing it beyond a reasonable doubt, not yet.

[14:45:04]

Now, again, it is always worth recognizing there's, I think, two weeks of testimony remaining and one major witness.

(CROSSTALK)

KEILAR: I do want to say the cross-examination of Tracey Menzies, from Harper Collins, is over. She had testified about this excerpt having to do with loyalty.

Trump had lean forward at one point and looked at the screen when Blanche, his attorney, asked to show the names of those who were thanked in his book. Not exactly sure where all that is going to.

But one of the excerpts that Menzies read here said, "I just can't stomach disloyalty. I put the people who are loyal to me on a high pedestal and take care of them very well."

Another reading, "When you are wronged, go after those people because it is a good feeling. And because other people will see you doing it. Getting even is not always a personal thing. it's just part of doing business."

GLORIA BORGER, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL ANALYST: That's Donald Trump.

KEILAR: I wonder what you think of this?

BORGER: That's Donald Trump. He always -- anybody who's worked with Donald Trump says -- and Chris Christie has said this out loud -- he demands loyalty and he doesn't give it in return. But when he feels you're disloyal, there's no end to what he will do.

KEILAR: The prosecution calling Madeleine Westerhout to the witness stand. This is going to be a continuation a bit of what we heard from Rebecca Manochio, who had been the employee from the Trump Organization, current employee, but at the time, she was in charge of sending those checks.

And her contact at the White House as -- this agreement happened before the election. The payout happened, and then the reimbursement happened after the election while Donald Trump was president. He's in the White House.

And those checks were going from New York, right? They were going down to D.C., $35,000 a month. Is that right?

WILLIAMS: Yes.

KEILAR: Every month, to total that $420,000. And Manochio had testified that she would send them down. Sometimes she would send them to the residences of different aids of Donald Trump's. But her contact was Madeleine Westerhout.

HONIG: Yes. So this is the chain of command, the chain of custody. And this actually links up nicely with Ms. Manochio's testimony earlier.

You have the checks being cut in New York at Trump Tower, $35,000 a month, made out to Michael Cohen, labeled as attorney's fees or attorney retainer, which is sort of the heart of the crime here.

FedEx down to the White House, Madeleine Westerhout then obtains the signatures and sent back up. It may seem dry, but the prosecution has to lay this out very clearly. This goes really to the heart of the crime.

The knowledge issues are going to be on Michael Cohen. But the who, what, when, how was the payments made. That's what they're establishing right now.

AUDIE CORNISH, CNN ANCHOR & CORRESPONDENT: May I ask a question, though? I was under the impression the last couple of weeks that, because the defense hadn't -- the word is stipulated, right?

HONIG: Yes.

CORNISH: They didn't agree to say yes, there's some basic facts we all agree on. It's allowed the prosecution to lay this very brick-by-brick road of the accounting.

And what they're trying to do, I think, in some ways here, the idea that the former president is very much in control of his money, possibly a micro-manager, right?

So can you talk to me about how that stipulation has worked for or against them in this process?

WILLIAMS: Sure. So to be clear, the defendant in a case can stipulate to any piece of evidence coming, saying we don't contest its reliability, bring it into court.

And there would be a risk to the defense stipulating to all of this. Because you can -- we can agree this is a check, OK. This is a check from the Trump Organization. This is a check from the Trump Organization with Donald Trump's signature on it.

HONIG: Right.

WILLIAMS: Can we stipulate to their --

(CROSSTALK)

CORNISH: -- comparing fonts?

(CROSSTALK)

WILLIAMS: Sure.

CORNISH: Like, it just feels -- WILLIAMS: But then that next question, what was the purpose of this check. Well, that could be a fact you could also stipulate to.

And I think the defense's strategy here was to go all the way far and not stipulate to any admission of anything and put -- let the prosecution do it.

Now, you're absolutely right --

CORNISH: Does that flood the zone if you're a juror sitting there, do you start to feel like awash --

WILLIAMS: Absolutely.

CORNISH: -- of a just a ton of information and it's hard to know what's important?

WILLIAMS: Absolutely. Because they spent 90 minutes or so last week introducing the $35,000 checks. And at a certain point, you know, some reporting from inside the courtroom suggested that jurors were glazing over a little bit.

Because they're being made to watch prosecutors, not defense attorneys, going check by check. Is this an accurate check?

BORGER: But I think, as Brianna said earlier, it kind of strains credulity here that you're the president of the United States. You're getting FedExes of checks you need to sign and you don't know what they're about?

We've been told, as Audie was saying, that he's a micromanager, that he never signed a check without knowing what it was about.

So it's also bizarre to me that these things were taking place in the White House. You know, presidents are supposed to have blind trusts. And here he is signing business checks in the Oval Office.

But the question is, how did he not know where these monthly $35,000 checks were going and why they were being issued.

WILLIAMS: There's a big difference --

(CROSSTALK)

WILLIAMS: Sorry.

KEILAR: I was going to say, let's get in a quick break if we can. Because they're sort of establishing this witness here, Madeleine Westerhout, who obviously was in the White House.

[14:50:06]

Trump leaning forward with his hands on the table, looking toward her as she testifies. She testified she'd been compelled to testify by subpoena and that her lawyer is taking the case pro bono.

We'll be back with much more.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

TAPPER: We are following developments from our team in the courthouse behind us where Donald Trump's criminal hush money trial is happening right this second.

I spent the morning up until lunch recess in the courtroom. In courtroom, what is it, 59? Watching on as Stormy Daniels testified for just over two hours.

Phil Mattingly and Paula Reid are back with me.

You guys are smarter than me. So ask me anything you want to know that I might have soaked up that I can give to you and you can make sense out of.

PAULA REID, CNN CHIEF LEGAL AFFAIRS CORRESPONDENT: What we wanted to know when we were here on set is there were moments of that cross- examination that were just farcical.

TAPPER: Yes.

REID: For example, when they were talking about Stormy Daniels being held in paranormal activity.

TAPPER: Yes.

REID: Turned out to be an opossum. What was the jury -

(CROSSTALK)

TAPPER: For the record, she's the one that acknowledged that it was an opossum.

REID: I'm glad she cleared that up.

TAPPER: She's the one that said it turned out to be an opossum.

REID: We were clutching our sides here. We couldn't even keep a straight face. Was the jury finding any humor in this? Did they seem confused, annoyed?

TAPPER: Well, I think it was all -- it was during this one section where Susan Necheles, Trump's attorney, was trying to make the -- make it clear that Stormy Daniels is an opportunist and will do anything for money.

I think that was the suggestion she was making. This woman will do anything for money. Here's a Stormy Daniels indictment candle. Here is a Stormy Daniels team, Stormy hashtag, "Team Stormy" T-shirt.

She takes off her clothes, she makes pornographic movies, blah, blah, blah. You're even a medium? What's this?

Basically also like insinuating that you lie to people and pretend that you can talk to their dead relatives. You prey on people.

She said that's something, like, everybody knows it's just entertainment. But I mean, that was what was going on.

Also, I think it was a backdoor for her to try to -- for Susan Necheles to try to introduce this thing that Judge Merchan told her that she could not introduce, was a Stormy Daniels had been arrested, I think in New Orleans, I believe. I'm not really up on her life.

But I think there were some -- she actually split with her husband and there was an arrest at some point. And Judge Merchan, before the jury got there, said you can't introduce it.

And I think it might have taken place in this New Orleans seance paranormal house. And I think she was trying to introduce it that way. That might have also been part of it.

PHIL MATTINGLY, CNN ANCHOR & CHIEF DOMESTIC CORRESPONDENT: Big day for Stormy's merch catalog, I think, at some level.

It has struck me, when people like Paula, have come out of court, our colleagues have come out of court, they talk about how it is just a very different experience than what we've been doing onset for the better part of the last four weeks.

What struck you or what surprised you being in the room?

TAPPER: Well, I mean, I guess just the disconnect between, A, this is a former president of the United States in a criminal trial in Manhattan. And it is May and he is the Republican nominee, presumptive Republican nominee, and could well be the president. That importance.

And then the stuff, the evidence that's being introduced. Her calling the president, the former president an orange turd that she needs to flush. And just the seediness, the sordidness, the smallness of a lot of this.

I mean, this is about trying to hide information from voters in October 2016. But we've gotten into all these petty nonsensical tweets and such.

[14:55:08]

Just the dichotomy between like, how stupid and small so much of the seams with the momentous of any president being tried criminally.

REID: I think that's right. I remember thinking the same thing.

The courtroom isn't very nice. It's kind of dingy. What did you observe about Trump's interactions with his lawyers? Because it felt like a lot of today was about client emotional management.

TAPPER: He seemed -- look, I didn't have -- I don't have the seat that - that the jurors have or that the great courtroom sketch artists have. I was six rows back in the audience and all the way on the far side. But from what I could tell, Mr. Trump was just staring straight ahead.

And he has a screen there, so he could, theoretically, be looking at the screen and seeing the evidence or Stormy Daniels.

At one point, he leaned over, lean forward and looked. But he was not interacting with her at all. And he would -- every now then, I believe -- again, I didn't have -- you know, you can't really see.

I think Mr. Bove was here. Mr. Blanche was here, too. Susan Necheles was here. He would lean and say things here and there. But we didn't really get a big sense of anything in terms of him interacting.

REID: And have you shown your sketches? I've been inside. Our work --

(CROSSTALK)

TAPPER: I think we showed the sketches. So I brought my -- I brought my iPad, which has this Adobe Fresco thing. So there's one. That's Stormy Daniels looking at, I think that might be the orange turd tweet.

Here's -- this is a combined four different drawings that I did, which was - that's Stormy Daniels early in the trial. There was a lot of looking at evidence.

But go back to the one of the room just for one second, guys.

So there's the judge and their Stormy Daniels in there and Susan Necheles on the far right. And there's Donald Trump just kind of staring straight ahead.

I have her arm -- arm wrong there. I knew she was doing something with her arm. And the much better professional courtroom sketch artists, Jane Rosenberg, and -- I forget, the other one's name is escaping me, even though she's fantastic.

If we could show their drawings, you'll see.

She actually was leaning back on the bar there.

Christine Cornell? What was her name? Christine Cornell. They -- and their work is so much, so much better than mine.

But this is more cartoony. So that's not it. That's -- I don't think that's even today necessarily. Those again -- these are these are from previous days.

So anyway. So, yes --

(CROSSTALK)

MATTINGLY: I was just on this because you've been effusive in your praise of the professionals who were --

(CROSSTALK)

TAPPER: -- Rosenberg, who I -- but not just today. I mean, like in general. But they really do great work. Yes.

MATTINGLY: But it's very easy to judge from outside, where we see the pictures. I still flash Tom Brady's sketch from some court thing that was just --

(CROSSTALK)

TAPPER: -- Tom Brady looks like to me. To me, that's the true Tom Brady, but that's --

MATTINGLY: He's the guy that won the Superbowl. I'm an Eagles fan like --

(CROSSTALK)

TAPPER: It's interpretive, right? These aren't facts. These aren't photographs. Even photographs can be manipulated. But this is an artist's interpretation of a moment, which is -- look, as journalists, I'm sure we all agree it'd be great to have cameras and microphones in the courtroom so everybody can see what's going on.

But Christine Cornell and Jane Rosenburg do a really great job of offering their interpretation of what they are witnessing and moments they are witnessing.

That's from today. That's Christine Cornell. And you see her arm, you see Necheles' arms going back there.

Anyway, I'm going to be back on "The Lead" at 4:00 p.m. Eastern.

Our coverage continues next hour with Phil and Paula here in Manhattan right outside the courthouse. Brianna Keilar at her perch in D.C.

We'll be back after this quick break.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)