Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Live Event/Special

Trump's Former Lawyer Michael Cohen to Testify; Prosecution to Wrap Case Soon; Judge Denies Gag Order on Cohen; Linking Trump to Payments; Biden's Decision on Israel Arms; UN Votes for Palestinian Membership; Ceasefire Talks Stalled. Aired 2-2:30p ET

Aired May 10, 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)

ABBY PHILLIP, CNN HOST: This is CNN's special live coverage of the first criminal trial of a former president. I'm Abby Phillip in New York City, outside of the courthouse with Brianna Keilar in Washington. And much of the Day 15 testimony in Donald Trump's hush money trial laid the groundwork for the star witness that everyone's expecting in the prosecution's case. That is former Trump fixer and personal attorney Michael Cohen. He will take the stand, or is expected to, on Monday. Cohen is also expected to provide some key evidence directly linking Trump to those hush money payments that are at the heart of this case. Brianna.

BRIANNA KEILAR, CNN ANCHOR: Yeah, we'll be looking for that, Abby. The prosecution intending to wrap their case next week, we've learned. Right before court ended today, Trump's attorneys asked the judge to put a gag order on Cohen to stop him from talking about the trial. The judge has previously said he cannot impose one on a witness, but he did order prosecutors to direct Cohen and tell him that it was the judge with that direction to not speak on the case. Trump with this reaction a short time ago.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DONALD TRUMP (R), FORMER PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: There is no gag order to Michael Cohen. What the judge did was amazing, actually. It was amazing. Everybody can say whatever they want. They can say whatever they want. But I'm not allowed to say anything about anybody. It's a disgrace. It shouldn't have been brought. But if it was going to be brought, it should have been brought seven years ago.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

KEILAR: Let's turn now to CNN's senior legal analyst, Ellie Honig. Ellie, take us through what happened today.

ELLIE HONIG, CNN SENIOR LEGAL ANALYST: Well, Brianna, we had an abbreviated day in court. But think of everything that happened today as setting the stage for Michael Cohen's testimony next week. Now, we heard continued testimony from Madeleine Westerhaus. And she told us about how when she worked in the White House, she sat right outside the Oval Office, and she would bring cheques from the Trump Organization into Donald Trump. He would sign them, and then she would send them back. And so we know we're going to see some of these cheques when it comes time for Michael Cohen to testify. Prosecutors are laying the groundwork, so they understand how those cheques were processed. We also heard today from a couple of representatives from phone companies. Now, why is this relevant? Because prosecutors are going to use phone records showing frequent contacts between Michael Cohen, between Allen Weisselberg, the CFO of the Trump Organization, between Keith Davidson, the lawyer for Karen McDougal, and Stormy Daniels. So when Michael Cohen says, I was on the phone with Allen Weisselberg all the time, I had a phone call with Keith Davidson on whatever date, prosecutors are going to say, see, here's a record from AT&T or Verizon confirming that there was a phone call.

Similarly, we saw a paralegal take the stand and testify about certain texts that had been exchanged between Michael Cohen, Dylan Howard, who worked for the National Enquirer, Stormy Daniels, and her team. And again, when Michael Cohen says, well, I was in frequent touch with Dylan Howard, as we negotiated with Stormy Daniels, they'll have texts that they can show the jury, again, to support Michael Cohen. And finally, we heard from another paralegal in the DA's office. This is a memorable experience for these paralegals, by the way, who went through some tweets and read tweets, including this one to the jury, where Donald Trump tweeted in August of 2018, shortly after he had his falling out with Michael Cohen, quote, if anyone is looking for a good lawyer, I would strongly suggest that you don't retain the services of Michael Cohen. I think prosecutors are trying to lay the groundwork there for how and when this relationship went bad.

KEILAR: Give us a preview, Ellie, of what to expect from Michael Cohen on Monday.

HONIG: Yeah, so, Brianna, it's hard to remember. I know you remember. But there was a time when Michael Cohen was Donald Trump's most loyal, fiercest defender. And he's going to take the jury back to that time, 2016, in particular. Michael Cohen is going to detail for the jury the catch and kill schemes that we've heard about throughout this trial that really lie at the heart of the case here.

[14:05:09]

He's going to talk about how he and David Pecker from the National Enquirer first worked out a deal to silence Karen McDougal and then later, and really this is where the charges lie, to silence Stormy Daniels. And let's just remember, because the Stormy Daniels payments are the most important here to the crime, the way it worked was about a week before the 2016 election, Michael Cohen paid Stormy Daniels $130,000. He essentially made that payment out of his own pocket. He drew down on his mortgage to get that money. And then over the year that followed, basically 2017, Donald Trump and the Trump organization reimbursed Michael Cohen $420,000 to cover this payment, plus some other costs, plus his tax liability. Cohen's going to lay this out, and I think it's safe to guess Michael Cohen will say Donald Trump knew all about it. He designed it this way with me in order to hide these payments from

campaign finance regulations. And finally, another thing that we had set stage for us today, Madeleine Westerhout testified that there was an important meeting February 5th, 2017. She doesn't know what was said, but she showed an email showing that this meeting happened. Michael Cohen meeting one-on-one with Donald Trump in the White House. And I expect Michael Cohen's going to say that's a meeting where we discussed this whole scheme and laid it out. That'll be a crucial piece of testimony. On Monday, it's going to be a fascinating week, Brianna. I think Michael Cohen will be on the stand for most or all of it. And I do think the case ultimately will rise and fall on his testimony.

KEILAR: Yeah, it was after that that the checks started coming from the personal account of Donald Trump. So we'll have to see some of the details as Michael Cohen lays them out. Ellie, thank you so much for that. Let's go back to Abby now in New York. Abby.

PHILLIP: Thanks, Brianna. CNN's Phil Mattingly is here with me. The former president spoke outside of the court today. He was talking about gas prices, inflation. But this case is looming over his entire presidential reelection. And it strikes me that one of the things he was the most irritated about with Stormy Daniels was the resurrection of this narrative about this alleged affair that he had with her that could very well be damaging to him. How is he taking all of this going into this election cycle?

PHIL MATTINGLY, CNN CHIEF DOMESTIC CORRESPONDENT: I think what you've seen from both his legal team and their public, the way they presented the case, the way they frankly cross-examined Stormy Daniels, I don't think an insignificant amount of that was related to trying to ensure that their client was happy or at least felt better about things. There's a recognition that it was a rough couple of days. And I think there's a lot of frustration. The fact that he can't talk about it, I think we've heard, has made it even angrier to some degree.

What's really interesting right now is he overcame, he bested all of these stories, right? Whether it's Access Hollywood, whether it's the hush money payments, whether it's the catch and kill schemes, he became president of the United States. And when he was president of the United States, and more and more details about these things came out, he was still president of the United States. Yes, he lost in 2020, but none of these were major issues in the 2020 campaign.

Now they are thrust back to the forefront. I think the one question that I think everybody needs to be fairly humble about right now when they try and answer it is, what effect does this have politically? We don't know. We've seen polling. It hasn't seemed like it's moved the needle a lot. We don't really know because really this election is about 20, 30, 40,000 people in five or six or seven states. How do they feel about it? If they don't like either candidate, does this change their perception of things? One thing that will be fascinating is the president has a rally tomorrow. He's had his political rallies basically outside of court in front reporters, a very small stage where he talks about some of the issues that are central to his campaign. Tomorrow is going to be in New Jersey, about 150 miles away from here. He'll have an opportunity to talk about the political side of things, but also whether or not he wants to let off some steam about what happened in court this week.

PHILLIP: He's not going very far to have this political rally--

(CROSSTALK)

MATTINGLY: And I don't think New Jersey is on the map for Republicans right now, so I'm not totally sure. It's a little bit more convenient. Certainly, Jersey Shore area, it's an area he's been before.

PHILLIP: That's pretty amazing because he has been complaining that the court has prevented him from campaigning.

MATTINGLY: Right.

PHILLIP: He's had, Wednesdays are not court days. He could spend those days every single time doing something for his campaign. This weekend is another example. Why isn't he taking advantage of these opportunities to actually campaign?

MATTINGLY: I mean, I think it is the great question. You get a number of explanations. One, they've been raising a lot. They've been raising money. He's had some fundraisers when he was down in Florida. He was raising money as well. The reality is the crux of his complaint about this being used to keep him off the trail. He's had opportunities to go on the trail. He has not gone on the trail. What they're doing behind the scenes, whether it's building out their infrastructure, there's some question about that when you talk to state officials, whether or not they're raising money.

They clearly had a lot of ground to make up against President Biden. They've been doing that. They say they've been doing that, raising tens of millions of dollars over the last couple of weeks. Is that going to hurt him in the long run? It's a real question because, yes, he has absolutely been restricted Monday, Tuesday, Thursday, Friday for the better part of a month and maybe for a week or two more. And that's problematic for a presidential campaign. You've heard this how many millions of times have advisers told us that the most valuable thing for a presidential candidate is their time. His time has been spent six, seven, eight hours a day in a courtroom.

[14:10:09]

PHILLIP: And rarely has he used those opportunities outside of the courthouse to actually execute a message. He did so a little bit today on Israel and some other issues, but he hasn't done it that consistently. But going back to what we were talking about earlier today, people may or may not be following the legal minutia of this case. But the other part of this case is a character case against Donald Trump. That, I think, is the underappreciated aspect of how all of this might be sinking into the electorate going into 2024. It's a reminder of some old stories, but some stories about who he is or might be as a person.

MATTINGLY: And I think the big question, and it's a little repetitive, but I think it's really important to point this out. Does it matter? And I don't mean that in a flippant way. Do people already bake that in? You talk to Republican officials, they say, look, everybody knows that. You talk to Republicans on Capitol Hill mostly because they want to stop talking about it. They say everybody knows that. But where are the voters who maybe don't like either candidate, haven't made up their mind? There are not a lot of people who haven't made up their mind. He has 100% name ID. President Biden has 100% name ID. There's a very small sliver they're fighting for.

If you don't like either candidate, does this change your calculation? Does this remind you of a reason maybe in 2016 you didn't like the candidate? Or perhaps more importantly, and I think this has been something a lot of Democrats I've talked to mentioned, people don't necessarily remember those four years in office, right?

PHILLIP: That's what the Biden campaign is arguing--

(CROSSTALK)

MATTINGLY: Yes, they will talk constantly about--

(CROSSTALK)

PHILLIP: --like theres been some amnesia.

(CROSSTALK)

MATTINGLY: Yes, why is there amnesia of the four years? That's what the Biden campaign is arguing. That happens to every former president. Does this bring that back to the table? It is an unanswered question, and it may be one that is central to what decides things in November.

PHILLIP: Yeah. One of the other things we learned this week is that this might very well be the only case that gets tried in court involving the former president. Phil, thank you very much. And for more perspective, let's discuss this with former Florida judge Jeff Swartz. Judge, thank you for being here with us. In the proceedings, Trump's defense objected to this 1999 interview from Larry King, when Trump was asked about campaign finance laws. Judge Merchan, he sided with the defense, ruling that if you tried to draw an inference from an old video about what Trump knew back in 1999 and what he knew in 2015 or 2017, that's a step too far. But the question of what Trump knew about campaign finance is pretty relevant here. Do you agree with the decision the judge made?

JEFF SWARTZ, FORMER FLORIDA JUDGE: I'm not really going to agree with that. I think at that point he said, I know everything there is to know about campaign finance because I'm a big contributor. And now all of a sudden we're talking about a difference of, yeah, 15, 16 years when this happened. But still, again, the history seems to show that Mr. Trump spent a lot of money over all those years contributing to a lot of campaigns, including Hillary Clinton's campaigns when she was running for Senate. So I think he knows very well. I'm not sure that I agree with it. I think that Judge Merchan is going to try to keep things as tight as he possibly can at this point because he's very close to the end. He sees the light at the end of the tunnel. And I think he just doesn't want to create anything which could be error at this point.

PHILLIP: Yeah, things that could come up on appeal perhaps as being unrelated to the case or too prejudicial perhaps to the defendant. But leading up to this trial, the defense had actually argued that Trump's tweets about Michael Cohen's retainer should be protected by presidential immunity. They actually wanted Judge Merchan to delay the trial until the Supreme Court could rule on that immunity issue, which they are currently deliberating on. How would you have ruled on this issue of whether presidential immunity even comes into play here when it comes to tweets?

SWARTZ: I will take a look at it-to make a decision on that you just look at United States versus Nixon and the fact of the matter in that there were many things that he said which would be covered by immunity. The things he said to Ehrlichman and Haldeman all came into evidence in the past. So therefore I don't see the difference between what he talked about with Michael Cohen and what they talked about with Richard Nixon. The fact of the matter is that I don't think that that's really an issue and I think that the whole Nixon matter has somehow been shuffled off into history. And I think wasn't even considered by the Supreme Court. I think that I would have gone along with what the D.C. Circuit said. There is no such thing as presidential immunity when you commit a crime in or out of office.

PHILLIP: Yeah. Yeah. It's interesting that the court decided to essentially reopen that issue. Judge Swartz thank you very much for joining us on all of those issues.

SWARTZ: My pleasure. Have a great day.

PHILLIP: Brianna.

KEILAR: Well, President Biden is facing some growing backlash over his decision to withhold some weapons from Israel, some rather large size bombs, 500 and 2000 pound bombs. This as the Biden administration gets ready to release a high stakes report on Israel's fight in Gaza. Did they violate international humanitarian law using U.S. weapons? We'll have new details next.

[14:15:09]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[14:20:09]

KEILAR: Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu says Israel is prepared to stand alone and fight with its fingernails if that's what it takes to wipe out Hamas in Gaza. His defiant statement coming after President Biden said he would halt some weapons shipments to Israel if it goes through with its planned offensive in Rafah. In an interview with TV host Dr. Phil Netanyahu gave no sign that he intends to back down.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) BENJAMIN NETANYAHU, ISRAELI PRIME MINISTER: I've known Joe Biden for many years, 40 years and more, but we will do what we have to do to protect our country, and that means protect our future. And that means we will defeat Hamas, including in Rafah. We have no other choice.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

KEILAR: In the meantime, ceasefire talks are on pause, but military operations in Rafah continue, with Israel carrying out airstrikes in the city overnight. And Israel's security cabinet just approved an expansion of its current operations in Rafah. CNN's Jeremy Diamond is with us now on the story. Jeremy, in that interview, Netanyahu talked about his long 40-year relationship with Biden, which is a relationship with its share of highs and now certainly a low point here and other lows as well. Where do things stand after this ultimatum from the president?

JEREMY DIAMOND, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Well, it certainly seems that that rift between the United States and Israel over a potential Israeli ground offensive into Rafah is certainly not narrowing. Instead, the Israeli government, as well as the prime minister, seem to be defiant in the face of these latest, threats from President Biden to withhold further U.S. weapons shipments to Israel if it proceeds with what he described as an all-out offensive into Rafah's population centers, the areas where there are about 1.4 million people in a very densely populated area. The Israeli security cabinet, I'm told by an Israeli official last night, approving a quote-unquote expansion of the area of operation in Rafah. This essentially empowers the Israeli war cabinet to continue making decisions about those military operations, about that expansion of military activity in Rafah. It's not necessarily an indication of any imminent expansion of military activity.

But at this point, given the statements that we've heard from the prime minister, from other Israeli government officials, combined with this security cabinet decision, it does seem that it is a question of when, not if, those Israeli military operations in Rafah will indeed expand. Now, so far, what we've seen is what the Israeli military is describing as limited operations. In Eastern Rafah but those limited operations are having enormous implications on the ground already. The Rafah border crossing has been closed all week. We have seen one of Rafah's three partially functioning hospitals shut down as patients and staff were forced to evacuate. A 110 000 people have evacuated that city of Rafah, but the Israeli military and its political leadership say they need to do more. They need to expand these military operations in Rafah, where they say that this is Hamas's last bastion. They say that there are four Hamas battalions embedded in those population centers in Rafah, Brianna.

KEILAR: Yeah, stopping the critical entrance of humanitarian aid there. And Jeremy, today, the UN General Assembly overwhelmingly backed a new push for Palestinian membership. What can you tell us about this vote, and how is Israel responding to this?

DIAMOND: Well, I mean, first of all, I think this vote is really quite a statement of where the world stands at this moment in terms of endorsing a Palestinian state. This vote was overwhelming, 143 to 9, with 25 nations abstaining, overwhelmingly voting to approve a resolution declaring that Palestinians have met the grounds to be considered a full member at the United Nations, urging the UN Security Council to reconsider the member status of the Palestinian Authority as it stands. The United States has previously vetoed resolutions that would do so at the UN Security Council.

We've heard reaction in Israel with the Israeli Foreign Minister slamming this resolution as, quote, absurd. You saw this antic by the Israeli ambassador to the United Nations, shredding the UN charter but accusing member states that voted for this resolution of doing that symbolically. We've also heard reaction, of course, from the Palestinian Authority President Abbas, calling on the United States to withdraw its veto and allow Palestine to become a full member state at the United Nations. The U.S., of course, supports the notion of a Palestinian state, but it wants to see that happen at the negotiating table. It wants to see a two-state solution, and it does not believe that that should happen via these kinds of votes at the United Nations. They want to see that happen through negotiations and through a long-term solution to this conflict, Brianna.

KEILAR: Jeremy Diamond, live for us in Jerusalem. Thank you for that report. And Biden's ultimatum to Israel is coming under heavy criticism from many Republicans and also from some members of the president's own party. CNN's MJ Lee is at the White House for us. MJ, what more do we know about what went into the president's decision, and where do things go from here?

[14:25:09]

MJ LEE, CNN SENIOR WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: Well, we know, Brianna, that this was a slow building and tough decision for President Biden after months of internal deliberations, consultations with Israeli officials, including direct warnings that were offered to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, all in an effort to basically try to get Israel to do a course correction. But ultimately, as the war was entering its eighth month, the assessment was made here at the White House that the president's warnings were not being heeded, at least not enough, with the Rafah invasion really looming as a very real possibility, I should say. And all of that, of course, led to what we now know as the first pause in the U.S. bombs being sent to Israel.

And then, of course, the president telling our Erin Burnett, that more arms shipments could certainly be paused if Israel were to go ahead with a full-scale invasion of Rafah, not just bombs, but other kinds of artillery as well. And this certainly ended up marking the most significant rupture that we have seen between not just U.S. and Israel, but also between President Biden and Prime Minister Netanyahu. We've seen, of course, sort of the quick reaction from across the world, including, of course, Israelis officials expressing anger and shock here in Washington. Lawmakers, both Republicans and some Democrats as well, expressing their concern. But when you talk to White House officials, what they have said is that nobody should be surprised that this was the decision that the president ended up making public. For example, John Kirby telling reporters yesterday, I can assure you

the direct and forthright nature with which President Biden expressed himself and his concerns in that interview with Erin Burnett is consistent with how he has expressed himself to Prime Minister Netanyahu and to Israeli officials. Now, Brianna, you were asking the question of where do things go from here. I think White House officials would say that entirely depends on what Israel decides to do or doesn't do going forward, including, of course, again, that crucial question of whether they decide to fully go into Rafah. And the other thing, of course, to watch is those ceasefire negotiations. You know, earlier in the week, we thought that there was real optimism and potentially real movement towards getting to a final deal. But that, again, appears to be stalled. And there's so much sort of on the line with those negotiations. The president has been pushing for that for months and months to get a pause in the fighting and also to get those hostages out.

KEILAR: Yeah, he has been. MJ, thank you. MJ Lee live from the White House. And still to come, much more on the hush money trial of former President Donald Trump. A prosecutor from the Manhattan D.A.'s office says could rest their case by the end of next week. So what should we be expecting? We're going to talk about that after the break.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)