Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Live Event/Special

Defense Asks Judge to Put Gag Order on Michael Cohen; Judge Instructs Prosecutors to Tell Him to Stop Commenting; Israeli Security Cabinet Approves Expansion of Rafah Operations After Biden Pauses Bomb Shipment Over Issue; FL Sheriff Releases Bodycam Footage from Airman's Shooting. Aired 3-3:30p ET

Aired May 10, 2024 - 15:00   ET

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

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[15:01:28]

BRIANNA KEILAR, CNN HOST: The former fixer now fixing to take the stand. The big news today in former President Trump's hush money trial is that Michael Cohen, Trump's former lawyer who is expected to link Trump directly to the alleged reimbursement payments, will testify on Monday. Court is over for the day today but just before it concluded, Trump's defense asked the judge to put a gag order on Cohen after his recent social media posts attacking Trump, the judge denying that request. CNN's Kara Scannell has been inside the courtroom every day of this trial.

And Kara, the judge rejecting the gag order request for Cohen, but he did tell prosecutors to tell Cohen to stop talking about the case. What more can you tell us?

KARA SCANNELL, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Yes, Brianna. So the lawyers for Trump brought this up at the end of the day, and they were saying that earlier this week, Michael Cohen had posted on TikTok, and in his post, he was wearing a T-shirt that had an image of Trump that - in an orange jumpsuit behind bars. They asked the judge to extend the gag order in the case to cover Cohen. But the judge has said all along that he doesn't have the authority to tell witnesses what to do in a case, but the prosecution said that they have repeatedly asked the witnesses, not just Michael Cohen, to refrain from making public statements about the trial or Donald Trump, but they can't control their witnesses either.

So the judge then said to the people, he said, "I direct the people to communicate to Mr. Cohen that the judge is asking him to refrain from making any more statements about the case or Mr. Cohen and - Mr. Trump, and that comes from the bench, and you're communicating that on behalf of the bench."

So just short of being able to directly order Michael Cohen not to do something, he's saying he wants prosecutors to tell them that the judge is saying from the bench that he firmly doesn't want him to say anything. Of course, Michael Cohen is expected on the witness stand on Monday, where he will begin his testimony, and he is the center person in this case. He was in the middle of the hush money payments that's at the issue of this case, and he's also involved in the reimbursement.

He's expected to testify that he and Donald Trump met in the Oval Office in February of 2018, and that is when, according to prosecutors, this alleged reimbursement screening was hatched, and it is this reimbursement, the cover-up of the hush money payments that prosecutors say resulted in those falsified business records, those 34 counts that Donald Trump is facing. So his testimony is expected to last a few days, but prosecutors said today in court that it is possible that they will rest their case by the end of next week, Brianna.

KEILAR: And Kara, the prosecution and the defense sparring over whether evidence should be allowed relating to former Trump Org CEO Allen Weisselberg. Tell us about that.

SCANNELL: Right. I mean, it sounds like he could possibly be a surprise witness in this case. Prosecutors want to get in a severance agreement that Weisselberg had with a Trump Organization, and they say that they want to use that to suggest to the jury that that's why he's not being called in this case. He is someone that is part of this alleged conspiracy, hatching the reimbursement with Donald Trump, Michael Cohen and himself.

So they want to show the severance agreement, which says that Weisselberg can't say anything negative about The Trump Organization if he wants to still receive the remaining payments.

Now, you remember, Allen Weisselberg is at Rikers Island jail in New York serving a five-month sentence for perjury in connection to a different Trump investigation. So Trump's lawyers have said, well, we don't think this document should come in, and the judge said it would be helpful to him to know if anyone has tried to get Allen Weisselberg to testify. Would he come in, because maybe that's the way to get this document in.

[15:05:04]

And so prosecutors said they hadn't asked that question. The judge said, well, it might be helpful if you do. And he suggested that Weisselberg come in outside of the presence of the jury and see, would he answer questions or would he assert his Fifth Amendment?

Judge saying that would be good for - to know for me to make this decision. So it's entirely possible prosecutors decide that they don't need this piece of evidence to get in or maybe we will see Allen Weisselberg show up in court to see if he will testify in this case. Brianna?

KEILAR: Very interesting. Kara Scannell, thank you so much.

Let's talk about this now with our panel. We're going to talk about the big moments from the week. But first, Elie, just that Allen Weisselberg piece of things, considerations here are what? ELIE HONIG, CNN SENIOR LEGAL ANALYST: Well, prosecutors are worried about the missing witness and this is a factor in a lot of trials. They are worried correctly that the defense is going to stand up and say, where's Allen Weisselberg, folks? He's the one in the middle of this. You heard so much about him. They're the ones with the burden of proof. They didn't call him.

And what they want to do, prosecutors, is be able to explain to the jury why they didn't call him. Now, the fact that he's in prison makes it more difficult, but that actually doesn't take someone off the board. People are brought in from prison to testify all the time. And what prosecutors want to do is get in evidence of his severance agreement with The Trump Organization, which, first of all, pays him, I think it's $2 million. Second of all, has a non-disparagement clause.

Now, I don't think a non-disparagement clause can legally prevent someone from testifying in court under subpoena. I mean, imagine if it did. But prosecutors want to have some reason to explain to the jury why they didn't hear from Allen Weisselberg in a way that's not used against them.

KEILAR: It's interesting. Remember that loyalty bit from the book?

HONIG: Yes.

KEILAR: The "Think Big" book?

HONIG: Yes.

KEILAR: It seems that there have been little kind of, I don't know, Easter eggs or something here or there that the prosecution has been dropping. Just I think that speaks maybe to a lot of witnesses or potential witnesses, but that might be one too as well. All right. Big moments ...

ELLIOT WILLIAMS, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: Yes.

KEILAR: ... from the week, Elliot. So let me say three that may not have been the splashiest moments of the week, but they're important legally, important to the outcome of the trial. And the first one, I think, was Jeff McConney, former Trump Organization executive, walking through checks and invoices and books. We have this testimony from Jeff McConney and Deborah Tarasoff, two Trump Organization employees.

It might have put jurors to sleep, but prosecutors can't establish a case about financial improprieties without getting those documents in. People have sort of a law and order or "Perry Mason" notion of how trials work, but witnesses like this were critically important.

Another one that I would point to is the denial of a mistrial and I think America got its introduction to the concept of a mistrial this week, where an error happens at trial that is so grave that it deprives the defendant of his ability to have a fair trial. The defense made the argument this week that Stormy Daniels' testimony, that got into all kinds of salacious details about sex and positions, and pajamas and all that business was so - sorry, Jackie, but was so prejudicial to the defense.

Because we chuckle about it ...

KEILAR: Continue with your alliteration (INAUDIBLE) ...

JACKIE KUCINICH, CNN POLITICAL ANALYST: I know, that was (INAUDIBLE) ...

KEILAR: Right.

WILLIAMS: We chuckle about it because it is preposterous and absurd that you're talking about a former president of the United States in this context. And the argument they made was that it jeopardizes ability to get a fair trial. The judge denied that, rightly so, because he can instruct the jurors later on to disregard some of that other stuff. But it really was a big moment, I think, in, frankly, American legal history, all of this. And I think the last one I would point to is Stormy Daniels' the second day of her testimony.

And the first day, I think, was pretty effective as a cross- examination, because what the defense did was attack her credibility by sort of saying that she'd signed a statement saying that she did not have sex with Donald Trump. She made a statement publicly that she did not. And also that she had financial interest in doing so, in engaging in all this behavior.

They could have stopped right there and cut things off. Instead, they brought her back for a second day of cross-examination and got into all this stuff where she was quite effective at lobbing shots back and saying - one of the questions was, you've made money off of this. And she said, yes, just like Donald Trump.

And it just sort of - I think she had the defense on their heels, as opposed to their toes, and really got the upper hand that second day. They could have cut it off, know when to say when, like the Bud Light commercial.

AUDIE CORNISH, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Yes. And to your second point, that's actually one of the things I found most striking, were these repeated attempts to call for a mistrial. But with one of them ending with the judge basically telling them that they were bad at their job ...

KUCINICH: Yes.

CORNISH: ... saying to Trump's attorneys, look, I don't know why ...

WILLIAMS: Yes.

CORNISH: ... you let that go. That is your job to stop that moment. And that, I feel like, is one of those moments that people can look back on and see ...

WILLIAMS: Yes.

CORNISH: ... in the record as being kind of a turning point, if anything.

WILLIAMS: It's not ...

CORNISH: Is that unusual?

WILLIAMS: So here's the thing. One, and something we haven't talked a lot about this week is that prosecutors and the judge can also step in at a certain point. And the judge, and Elie and I talked about this one day earlier in the week, where you're asking questions and the judge just says, objection sustained.

[15:10:07]

Where the other side didn't object to it, but they should have and he's sort of slapping them on the wrist for not having done so. And if the judge truly felt that evidence should not have been getting into court, he had every right and ability to cut it off right there. Now ...

CORNISH: But is there a world where he wouldn't want to be jumping in, right, in a case so high profile?

WILLIAMS: Well ...

HONIG: This is why I think ...

WILLIAMS: Yes.

HONIG: ... the judge was actually quite unfair to Trump's team when it came to this ruling.

WILLIAMS: Yes.

HONIG: Because he said, well, it's your fault. You should have been objecting. First of all, Trump's team raised it before the day started. And the judge said, I'm with you. We're not going to get out of control with the details. Second of all, Trump's team did object three, four times and the judge said, I agree. Objection sustained. So what are they supposed to do? Pop up every question? You look horrible in front of the jury if you do that.

CORNISH: (INAUDIBLE) that people you opened the door to all of these things. And I don't think that was all that different from some of the analysis that came out of that day, where many of you on this panel were even saying, hey, why did they go back for more, why did this go longer and my answer - with some reporting - was that perhaps Trump himself wanted to extend.

But I just think it's sort of an interesting moment of maybe overreach. And it just found it striking.

WILLIAMS: I'd say a couple of things. One, the judge, if in fact a lot of bad evidence that shouldn't have gotten in got in, it's still on the judge on appeal, potentially. Now, because it still would have tainted the trial, now, it depends on when the defense raised their objections in response to the evidence. But it's still on him, the failure.

So there's a lot of blame to go around on the judge who wagged his finger at the defense. The one thing I would disagree with you a little bit, Elie, is the thing that they went back and forth on in the morning was the specifics about, trigger warning, Donald Trump's genitalia was one of the questions that Stormy Daniels - can she bring in a discussion of that or not.

Now, it turned into, on questioning, all this discussion about all this other stuff. But your point's well taken, that they did get in the morning into the questions of how much should we limit these things that we talk about when she comes out.

KEILAR: Instead, we did get into, let's say, pajamas, et cetera, what you were saying ...

WILLIAMS: Yes.

KEILAR: ... before. And I think those are just some of these details. These are the things, clearly, that Donald Trump is getting very frustrated by. We're seeing some of - and I'm not talking just about pajamas, I'm talking about a number of details that he has reacted to in court. Our people who are there observing are saying it. They're seeing it and telling us this is what he seems to be worried about in some cases, that this is what the world is hearing about, right?

JACKIE KUCINICH, CNN POLITICAL ANALYST: Yes. This is about reputation. This is about his family hearing about, which he said and it's embarrassing. I mean, I think anybody who's having someone talk about like that - and he doesn't - he's not someone who is, laughs at himself. He's not someone that can, you know, brush things off. He's someone who's used to being in control and the authority in the room and he's not - all of those things have been removed from him and he can't make it stop.

And he can't also - I mean, again, this was with the gag order, which we've talked about. He can't refute anything she's saying in public because of this gag order.

KEILAR: He's also a captive audience.

KUCINICH: Yes.

KEILAR: And he cannot turn off the channel. He cannot choose not to read it. It is happening before him and he knows that everyone else is getting word of what's going on. Thank you so much to all of you for your wonderful insights today. We appreciate it.

And still ahead, the family of a Florida airman is demanding answers and accountability after a police deputy shot and killed him last week. What the sheriff's office is saying about claims that the deputy went to the wrong apartment.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[15:18:10] KEILAR: Israel's security cabinet has just approved expansion of its military operation in the Southern Gaza city of Rafah. This follows President Biden's threat to withhold some weapons from Israel if it launches an offensive there. But the white house says it's not seeing indications of a large scale invasion of Rafah at this point.

A defiant Prime Minister Netanyahu says Israel is prepared to stand alone and fight with its fingernails in its campaign to wipe out Hamas. Despite Biden's ultimatum, Israel has stepped up its ground operation around Rafah and continues carrying out airstrikes in the city with ceasefire talks on hold. CNN's Jackie Kucinich, Nic Robertson is joining us now.

Nic, the U.S. and Israel, they've had some tough relations here. They've really reached a crossroads, where do things go?

NIC ROBERTSON, CNN INTERNATIONAL DIPLOMATIC EDITOR: I think militarily the IDF is poised for that potential expansion of operations. Look, they either have to pull out of Rafah or they have to get on with the operation. And the government's indicated every step of the way that it believes that there are four Hamas battalions still hiding out there.

I think if you look at the developments there late this afternoon, the IDF said there were nine rockets fired out of Rafah, Hamas rockets fired out of Rafah to Beersheba. That's like 30 miles away. That hasn't happened in months, and months and months. One of those rockets was intercepted, several landed. One lady was lightly injured.

But if you're the IDF weighing your military options and Hamas is firing rockets out of the place you're poised to have an operation in, it does seem like you're more likely to go ahead with that operation than hold back. And we know that there's a big military deployment just over the border at the Rafah crossing on the Gaza side. So the troops are available.

[15:20:00]

The plan is available. It just depends at what level the IDF and the government want to execute it at and you could pass the language of full-blown operation, small increase in operation. But the U.N. officials involved, the Palestinian officials involved in Rafah talking about the closing of hospitals, 110,000 people leaving the area, more people leaving the area, nowhere really for them to go that's safe or where they've got food or adequate shelter or adequate sanitation. All of these things.

So I think where does it stand at the moment in terms of Rafah, I think the indications are we're on a slower track than we were perhaps, but we're still on a track for that military operation there.

KEILAR: And Nic, just quickly, just to be clear, even without these 500- and 2,000-pound bombs, it's not as if Israel does not have considerable firepower in its proposed offensive here.

ROBERTSON: It does. One of the things that the IDF did when they went in at the very beginning, seven months ago, they put a premium on protecting soldiers' lives. So they did use big ordnance on operations to spare soldiers' lives. What did we hear from the IDF yesterday? That a ground operation involving I think it was nine or 11 soldiers, as they said, hit a hornet's nest, a Hamas hornet's nest is how they described it, inside of Rafah.

And they say nine of those soldiers were lightly injured. One was a bit more seriously injured. They say those soldiers got stung. That's kind of metaphoric language, but it comes down to the same thing, that the IDF is going to find themselves, if they're not using those heavy weapons, then the soldiers are likely going to be in greater harm's way than they would have been previously. Not exclusively, but that is a potential.

And, of course, that can have a potential backlash for the prime minister of Israel, too. If there are higher troop casualties in the Rafah operation than, let's say, the operation in the north of Gaza, then this could turn sentiment against them. We're not there yet, but I think without those heavy weapons, it's harder for the troops on the ground.

KEILAR: All right. Nic Robertson, thank you so much for that report. We do appreciate it.

A Florida sheriff is disputing claims from the family of a black airman fatally shot by a deputy last week. The Okaloosa County Sheriff's Department has released body cam video of the deputy shooting Roger Fortson. His family says police went to the wrong apartment. Officials, though, deny that. The family says the details that the police are giving just don't add up.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

CHANTEMEKKI FORTSON, ROGER FORTSON'S MOTHER: I need you guys to tell the truth about my son. I need you to get his reputation right.

BENJAMIN CRUMP, ATTORNEY: Yes.

FORTSON: If you have a heart, if you have a niece, a nephew, any young person in your life, tell the truth about my son.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

KEILAR: The family's legal team also released their own video, which was from the FaceTime call between Fortson and his girlfriend, which captures the aftermath of the shooting. CNN's Nick Valencia is in Atlanta now.

Nick, talk to us a little bit about how this unfolded and I think really, in a way, there's a question of whether both sides may be correct here and that the police may have gone to the apartment that some sort of apartment manager told them to go to, but was that really the apartment they should have been going to in terms of where a disturbance was?

NICK VALENCIA, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Well, we just listened to the dispatch audio and it's very clear in that audio that they say to go to room 1401, apartment 1401. But when the deputy got on the scene, there seems to be some confusion with the woman who's escorting him to the area where this alleged disturbance was taking place. So there's some dispute about some of the facts.

Initially, though, this all happened last week because of a 911 call about a physical disturbance in progress. The family, though, has pushed back on that claim. In fact, in that press conference that you saw just a short time ago from yesterday, Ben Crump, who's now representing the family, he says that the initial statement from police was misleading, so much so that it seemed as though that the shooting happened not inside of Roger Fortson's apartment, but outside, and that the deputy feared for his life. We're about to show you that video. But before we do, I want to warn you, it is graphic.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Sheriff's office. Open the door. Sheriff's office. Open the door. Step back.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

VALENCIA: So we stopped the video there. In real time, the audio shows just about three seconds between the time that door opens, and the first shot is fired. The victim, identified as a veteran of the U.S. Air Force, Senior Airman Roger Fortson. He'd been a part of the U.S. Air Force since 2019.

Fortson was on the phone, a FaceTime call with his girlfriend. She was a witness to the whole thing, and after the first shots were fired, she began recording. We've obtained that recording. I want to show you. And in this, you could hear Fortson struggling to breathe as the deputy calls for an ambulance.

[15:25:00]

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

ROGER FORTSON: I can't breathe.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Do not move. Stop moving. Stop moving. (INAUDIBLE). Hang on, man. We got an ambulance coming for you. Don't move.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: (INAUDIBLE) move, move, move.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: We're good, we're good, we're good. We're good. He had a gun since he open that door.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

VALENCIA: Now, getting back to those facts that are in dispute, the sheriff is adamant that his deputy went to the right address. The family, though, pushing back on that claim, but listen to the sheriff in his own words of how he saw things go down.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) SHERIFF ERIC ADEN, OKALOOSA COUNTY, FLORIDA: What we do know at this time is that the deputy did announce himself, not once, but twice. Mr. Fortson's comments indicate that he did acknowledge it was law enforcement at the door and he arrived at the door with a firearm in his hand. The deputy knocked on the correct door. He did not cover the peephole or otherwise obscure its view in any way.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

VALENCIA: That deputy is now on paid administrative leave. Meanwhile, the FDLE, Florida Department of Law Enforcement, they're the lead on this investigation. And just very quickly, Brianna, I just got off the phone with the chief assistant in the state attorney's office there in Okaloosa County. They said they have no comment on the video. They've seen it. But they're going to wait for the FDLE to finish their investigation before they decide anything about charges, Brianna?

KEILAR: All right. Nick, we know you'll continue to follow this story. Nick Valencia, thank you.

VALENCIA: You bet.

KEILAR: Ahead. We'll talk with a former attorney for former President Donald Trump and get his take on how Trump's legal team is handling the hush money trial so far.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)