Return to Transcripts main page
CNN Live Event/Special
Cohen To Resume Testimony Today; Cohen Resume Testifying In The Trump Case. Aired 9:30-10a ET
Aired May 14, 2024 - 09:30 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
[09:30:00]
JAMIE GANGEL, CNN SPECIAL CORRESPONDENT: That's why he's sitting in Rikers for the second time. But right now the judge is deciding whether or not to bring Allen Weisselberg to 100 Centre Street out - not with the jury present, to just see what he would say. Will he take the Fifth? Will he not answer? Because one question is, are the jurors going to be wondering, where is the other guy who was in the room for all this.
JAKE TAPPER, CNN HOST: And, Mr. Brennan, tell us, if you would, what - what this thing called the missing witness is. This is some sort of legal theory that's been introduced yesterday to me. I'd never heard of it before, even though I am an assiduous watcher of "Law & Order." What is the missing witness?
WILLIAM J. BRENNAN, FORMER TRUMP PAYROLL CORP. ATTORNEY: Jake, at the conclusion of the trial, if Mr. Weisselberg does not testify, the defense can get up and say to the jury, why didn't you hear from Weisselberg? Where was Weisselberg? How come he did -
TAPPER: Are you allowed to do that? Do you have to get special dispensation to do that? What is that?
BRENNAN: No. No, you don't. We tried a case not too long ago, in the eastern district, that had a political bent, and there were two former members of Congress that were kind of person number one and person number two. And it involved some campaign strategist. My client was not charged. His brother was. And the defense lawyer, a very fine defense lawyer from Philadelphia, put who chairs in front of the jury box and said, ladies and gentlemen, I'm not going to mention the names, but where is congressman and where is congressman? And it didn't work in that case, but you can do it.
TAPPER: It didn't work for Clint Eastwood when he did it with Barack Obama at the convention in 2012.
BRENNAN: No, that -
TAPPER: It doesn't work very often, but, you know, go ahead.
KASIE HUNT, CNN HOST: I will never forget that.
(CROSS TALK) ELLIOT WILLIAMS, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: You know, Jake, to your question, can you just do that? It's important to note that every rule that governs our court system comes out of the constitution in effect. And they all are designed to protect the defendant, not witnesses, not prosecutors, not anything else. And so the idea that a jury can draw negative thoughts or inferences about somebody who doesn't testify is perfectly fair game because of the fact that it ultimately acts to the protection of the defendant.
TAPPER: Yes, what are Allen Weisselberg's actual legal abilities here? Is he - are you allowed to just refuse to testify?
ELIE HONIG, CNN SENIOR LEGAL ANALYST: So, he - let me explain how this is going to play out, I think, with Allen Weisselberg. And this is an important issue looming over these last several days of trial. Bill is exactly right, the missing witness problem is terrifying for prosecutors. I never wanted to have a missing witness.
The best you can do though is what you call an unavailable missing witness. So, here's what I think is going to happen. Allen Weisselberg's in prison. That's not why he can't testify. People get transported down - there's vans every couple hours from Rikers down to the courthouse.
What I think the judge is going to do is bring Allen Weisselberg in, outside the presence of the jury, and say, are you willing to answer questions? And if he says, no, your honor, I'm going to invoke my Fifth Amendment right, which he should, doesn't necessarily mean he will, which he should, then he becomes unavailable. If the word from Allen Weisselberg is, I won't testify, Fifth Amendment, it's the same thing as if he was dead. He's unavailable to both sides.
And then the instruction that Bill was talking about will be way better for prosecutors. It won't be, well, there was a missing witness, either side could have called him. It's, there's a missing witness. He's - I instruct you Allen Weisselberg is legally unavailable. And then defense lawyers like Bill can't do their whole shtick with the missing chair because he's available.
TAPPER: And what about the document, the severance contract or whatever it's called?
GANGEL: OK.
TAPPER: You have - you have a copy of that thing.
GANGEL: Yes, I have. OK.
TAPPER: So, Mr. Weisselberg, when he left the firm -
GANGEL: Right.
TAPPER: When he left the Trump Organization, signed a document. Tell us about that.
GANGEL: So, what this is, is - HUNT: (INAUDIBLE).
GANGEL: And he is still owed payment on it. He is still waiting for $750,000.
TAPPER: They can't pay him in cigarettes, presumably.
GANGEL: This is - and 2B says that he cannot verbally or in writing disparaged, criticize or denigrate the company or any of its current or former entities, officers, directors, managers, employees, owners, or representatives.
TAPPER: Non-disparagement.
GANGEL: So that's -
TAPPER: You can't say anything negative about the Trump Organization.
GANGEL: Correct.
Now -
DAVID CHALIAN, CNN POLITICAL DIRECTOR: Even if he's under oath?
TAPPER: Hold on.
GANGEL: Wait.
TAPPER: There's another clause.
GANGEL: Wait.
TAPPER: There's another clause, David. Hold on.
GANGEL: This is part D. That except for acts or testimony directly compelled by subpoena or other lawful process issued by a court of competent jurisdiction. He will not communicate. And it goes on.
I think this goes to the point that Allen Weisselberg is going to - if the judge brings him in, as we think he may, he's going to take the Fifth because he can be subpoenaed and come in, but he doesn't have to testify.
TAPPER: All right, fascinating stuff.
BRENNAN: He testified, Jake, in our case.
TAPPER: Yes.
BRENNAN: For days. But it was under a cooperation agreement with the DA's office.
TAPPER: OK. Very interesting. We'll pick that up when we come back.
The judges is inside the courtroom. Judge Juan Merchan. And very soon we expect Michael Cohen, Michael Dean Cohen, will get back up on that witness stand. CNN's special live coverage continues just ahead. Keep it here.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[09:39:34]
JOHN BERMAN, CNN HOST: All right, welcome back to CNN's special live coverage of the criminal trial of Donald Trump. Those are live pictures from inside the courthouse. A few minutes ago, Donald Trump passed through that area right there, walk into the court where he is sitting. Now, and we understand chatting with his defense counsel.
Judge Juan Merchan is on the bench right now. And as you can see on the side of your screen, he just said, let's get the witness, please. That means that Michael Cohen, on his way back to the witness stand for crucial testimony this morning.
[09:40:05]
The prosecution will continue their direct, which means the prosecution gets to ask him questions. And then at some point today we do anticipate that defense will get their turn with the cross- examination.
I am here, not far from the court, with Paula Reid and Kristen Holmes.
And, Paula, one of the things we expect to happen very quickly this morning is a discussion about a meeting in the Oval Office after Donald Trump was already president with Michael Cohen, where some part of this was discussed.
PAULA REID, CNN CHIEF LEGAL AFFAIRS CORRESPONDENT: That's exactly right. Because he left off somewhere in January 2017. And then in February 2017, once Trump is the leader of the free world, he's in the White House, he and Michael Cohen have a meeting in the Oval Office where, as you said, they discuss some part of this alleged conspiracy to falsify business records. This is potentially a key piece of evidence and testimony for prosecutors, depending on what Michael Cohen said.
Now, Cohen has entered the courtroom. He's apparently glanced back several times at the back of Trump's table. It's a highly obstructed view in there. It's difficult to see, especially once you're at the witness stand. But he would walk directly past Trump's table as he tries to make his way to the witness stand. So, that's likely what that is, is referring to, that he looked over to Trump, which is notable because it wasn't clear yesterday for a lot of it how much he was looking there.
Now, Trump was in conversation with his attorney, didn't look towards Cohen as he walked by, so no acknowledgement.
BERMAN: Yes.
REID: But when prosecutors get to this Oval Office meeting, I mean Cohen is really the only person, unless Trump testifies, who could speak to this. And again, it's a really critical piece of evidence in them building their case that Trump was aware of this alleged conspiracy to falsify business records and cover up this hush money payment.
BERMAN: To be clear, at the end of testimony yesterday, Michael Cohen did say that Donald Trump knew of and approved of the payment scheme classifying them as legal payments, which the prosecution contents was not the case. So, we got one bite at that yesterday. Cohen has already testified to that. Will they do it again?
The jury has now entered the courtroom.
Kristen, one of the questions that I've been asking lawyer since last night is, OK, if the jury believes Michael Cohen, is their enough now to convict him? And the answers lawyers will give you is, yes, but. The question, if the jury believes Michael Cohen is such a big one. And you have reporting that the Trump defense team is looking at just - just at that exactly.
KRISTEN HOLMES, CNN NATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Exactly. So, look, they believe that this all comes down to Michael Cohen. The entire case hinges on him. And as we have been reporting, I mean, that is their entire defense. It's going to be going after Michael Cohen. They're doing it both publicly and they're going to do it in the courtroom as well.
The big question being again, will the jury believe Michael Cohen over blank, because we don't have Donald Trump testifying. All it is, is Michael Cohen's story here. And we really don't know the answer to that. I think we've heard time and time again from various lawyers, legal analysts, who say it really is unknown how they could perceive this. Does this look like Donald Trump was committing a crime or does this look like a guy who was cheating on his wife and trying to get past that issue.
Now, again, when I talked Donald Trump's lawyers, they say that they hope that the jury can see through Michael Cohen and they plan on using Michael Cohen - painting him as a liar, somebody who it out to get Donald Trump, has an axe to grind during that cross-examination.
One lawyer I spoke to said, look, this is all resting on Michael Cohen's shoulders. How is he going to be during that cross- examination?
BERMAN: OK. The prosecutor is picking back up with Cohen's meeting with Trump and Weisselberg and the planned reimbursement.
I want to bring in Adam Kaufmann. He's a former executive assistant district attorney for the Manhattan District Attorney's Office.
And, Adam, on that very point, we understand the prosecution is going right back to the meeting between Trump, Weisselberg and Michael Cohen where the discussion of the payment plan allegedly took place according to Michael Cohen. Why is that so crucial? Why is Michael Cohen testifying that Trump approved it so important to this case?
ADAM KAUFMANN, FORMER EXECUTIVE ASSISTANT D.A.: Right. So, you know, a lot of what we've heard in the first parts of the case was setting the table for this moment. It was laying the groundwork, establishing all of the corroboration, establishing the context, establishing the catch and kill and so forth.
Sorry, I'm getting a feedback over the - thank you.
So - so when you cut to the heart of the case, which is whether there was this agreement to falsify records, whether Trump knew about it, whether he approved it, whether he was part of that, this is the heart of the case. This is the core of the case. And I think it's true, this really does come down just to Michael Cohen's testimony. This is not going to be corroborated unless Weisselberg testifies. And so it comes down to Cohen. Everything else was laying the groundwork and trying to corroborate all of the collateral and extrinsic points about Cohen.
[09:45:02]
But at the heart of the case, it's what Cohen said happened with Trump.
BERMAN: And what you're seeing on the screen right now is testimony that's sort of the scaffolding to back up some of the timeline that Michael Cohen is saying. You're seeing testimony submitted into evidence previously from Jeff McConney, who was the controller of the Trump Organization, emails sent from McConney to Michael Cohen talking about the invoices. And now Michael Cohen is discussing the Oval Office meeting with Donald Trump.
We have not yet heard about that from Michael Cohen directly. We have heard about a meeting in Trump Tower. Now Cohen says he visited the White House the same day and had a conversation with Trump in the Oval Office.
Cohen says, "I was sitting with President Trump and he asked me if I was OK. He asked me if I needed money."
Adam, to have a conversation in the Oval Office about something connected to this scheme, how do you think that will play with the jury?
KAUFMANN: That's really - it's pretty powerful, isn't it? I mean if you're a juror sitting there, I think its powerful for all of us to hear it. You know, this conversation taking place at the seat of power, the most powerful desk in the world. It really speaks to something. And I think the jurors are going to really take note of this.
Of course, the defense will tear this down and say that, you know, ultimately, whatever happened in this meeting, and the fact of the meeting will be corroborated. What was said will not be. And so the defense is going again to try to tear down Cohen's credibility -
BERMAN: Hang on one second.
Michael Cohen says, I'm just going to have to jump in here because I do want people to know exactly what's being said. Michael Cohen said, "I said, no, all good." That was to the question of do you need money? I miss what it said there. It went down. Hoffinger, the prosecutor, asked whether Trump said anything about what would be forthcoming to Michael Cohen. So again, we're getting details about this conversation, Adam, and I apologize. I will jump in the minute we get another update from the court.
"Yes, it would be a check for January and February," Cohen responds. So again, he is talking about how he is getting details. Cohen confirms he took photos while he was there, details around this visit to the White House to corroborate he was there, even if there is no one else to testify about exactly what was discussed between he and the former president, Adam.
Cohen confirms he took photos while he was there. Yes, I just saw that. Jurors are being shown the photo of Cohen in the White House Briefing Room, which has been displayed previously. All of this, Adam, I imagine, evidenced again to support his presence there, if not the exact contents of the discussion.
Cohen says he took the photo from the briefing room podium after the meeting with Trump.
KAUFMANN: That's exactly. Right. I mean - yes.
BERMAN: Go ahead.
KAUFMANN: Very powerful just to see those photos and great corroboration.
But, you know, again, it comes back to what was said at the meeting. And there will be no witnesses to that. And, you know, what these payments were for. So - so, I think that the evidence that we're seeing right now is - it has a sort of human power, just the location where it occurred and the fact that this was in the Oval Office is - is remarkable. But the defense will still pair that down and try to show that it's just Cohen saying what he claims happened in that meeting and, ladies and gentlemen of the jury, how can you take the word of a serial liar. That - that's where we're heading.
BERMAN: We are heading there at some point later today.
Adam, thank you so much for your help here.
Back with Paula Reid and Kristen Holmes.
And what we're getting right now is just a lot of supporting evidence that Michael Cohen was there.
REID: Yes.
BERMAN: The pictures he took. The calendar entries that he had while he was that the White House meeting with Donald Trump.
REID: Yes, and it's funny because at one point they asked, you know, why did you take photos? Because there were a lot of questions yesterday about why he recorded something, right. Was this to protect you? Was this to protect someone else when you record a phone call with your boss without his knowledge? And he said he was trying to protect someone else. But this time he gave a pretty reasonable answer, which, yes, I took photos because I'm visiting the White House. It's what people do. There you see one of those photos. He appears to be in the White House Briefing Room.
And now the jury is looking at emails between Jeff McConney, who previously testified, and Cohen. Now, I keep going back to a key piece of McConney's testimony where he corroborated what many witnesses have said, which is that Trump is the consummate micromanager. He was involved in everything until 2017. Then he goes to the White House and the system, the process changes and things become very chaotic.
Now, Trump's lawyers will also argue that during this exact time they were trying to build a wall between the Trump Organization and the White House. And really this meeting, that's what makes this so significant because it is one of the few examples where you had someone like Allen Weisselberg, who works at the Trump Organization, and Trump, and Cohen all together talking about this alleged conspiracy.
[09:50:11]
BERMAN: And again, you are getting more details now, more supporting evidence that Michael Cohen was there. In one of the emails from Jeff McConney dated February 14, 2017, Cohen asked McConney to remind him the monthly amount he is supposed to invoice.
And, Jake, what you're getting here, not just Michael Cohen's presence at the White House, but contemporaneous correspondence from Cohen to others about the payment scheme, Jake.
TAPPER: That's right, McConney responds to remind Cohen it's $35,000 per month. This is part of, according to the prosecution, the way that they hid the repayment to Michael Cohen for the Stormy Daniels payment with a monthly fee, as if it was what he was just being paid as Donald Trump's attorney.
"I actually didn't remember it." Cohen explains. "I didn't have a copy of the document."
And here we get into the nitty-gritty, Elliot Williams -
WILLIAMS: Yes.
TAPPER: Of the fact that this is a falsification of business records case.
WILLIAMS: Right.
TAPPER: These are the actual falsified business records, allegedly.
WILLIAMS: So, a few things are going on here. Number one, they are, in effect, corroborating Michael Cohen's testimony in real time by going to the financial records that can support the words that are coming out of his mouth. Number one. Number two, it's also very clear that at a minimum the prosecution has
established with flying colors now that there was a scheme to repay Michael Cohen for the - for the - the process of covering up embarrassing affairs. Now the question is, the extent to which you can draw a link to this being done for, you know, the benefit of the president's marriage. But they've - they've been quite successful here at establishing this point. And there is a narrative, you'll see it today, frankly, at the lunchtime press conference, that the prosecution has not met any of its burden or presented any evidence. And to the contrary, this is actually quite compelling.
HONIG: This is a good example, if I can, of the strengths and the weaknesses of the prosecution's case because we have this crucial meeting, February 2017, in the Oval Office, and there's all sorts of corroboration that matters. They have calendar entries showing the meeting happen. They have photos of Michael Cohen standing at the lectern. Emails. There was testimony from Madeleine Westerhout. There's no question that meeting happened. So, that's nice corroboration. But what they only have Michael Cohen's testimony on is what was said inside that meeting. So, you liked that corroboration as a prosecutor. It's great, but it doesn't get you all the way there. And that's why ultimately Michael Cohen's credibility is going to be make or break.
LANNY DAVIS, MICHAEL COHEN'S FORMER ATTORNEY: Jake -- Jake, I'm sorry, my good friend, it's not what was said. We have written checks by a sitting president of the United States at his desk. And those checks are signed from his personal bank account. And then we have Weisselberg with his own handwriting notes explaining what those checks total up by $35,000 (INAUDIBLE) -
TAPPER: Let's - let's - let's bring up - let's bring up -
DAVIS: The checks are these evidence.
TAPPER: let's - let's - let's bring up the -
DAVIS: Not what he said.
TAPPER: That Weisselberg memo that Lanny Davis, former attorney for Michael Cohen, is referring to. There it is. And that's the - that's the document you're talking about.
DAVIS: And can - can I give you a narrative?
TAPPER: Yes, please do.
DAVIS: That I now can reveal. When I first saw that document sitting prosecutors did not know about it. I thought, this is the hottest document I have seen, besides the checks that Elie forgot to mention -
HONIG: Oh.
DAVIS: Signed by a sitting president.
TAPPER: That's OK. DAVIS: No - no - no insult intended. Just, you didn't mention. The fact is that this document, Elie, when I first saw it in Weisselberg's handwriting, chewing up the amount of money, nothing about legal services, this is all about reimbursement, and that reimbursement, where it was used by Rudy Giuliani on national television, nobody doubted it was a reimbursement. And that's the documents (INAUDIBLE).
TAPPER: Let's bring - can I just bring up the document one more time, if you would, folks?
DAVIS: Yes.
TAPPER: And I just want to walk out -
DAVIS: See the scroll.
TAPPER: So, see the thing - the thing that's going on right now, this check for $35,000 that Michael Cohen is testifying right now about with attorney - the prosecutor, Susan Hoffinger, saying, "was this invoice a false record?" This is the monthly invoices Michael Cohen is supposed to send for $35,000. And Michael Cohen says, "yes, ma'am, it's false."
"Were any of those invoices that you submitted based on services performed for the months indicated pursuant to a retainer agreement?," Hoffinger asks. Michael Cohen's going to say no. But what I want you - to bring your attention to, I don't know if we have the capability of zooming in on that document.
"No, ma'am, they were for a reimbursement," Cohen says.
If you look at this document from Allen Weisselberg, where he breaks down the hush money payment plus the additional money that it's going to have to be so that Michael Cohen doesn't end up getting screwed on the taxes, plus some additional money for a Christmas bonus he got screwed out of, that ends up being, and it says right there at the bottom, right above monthly from DJT, wire monthly from DJT, it says $420,000 and then it says -
[09:55:04]
DAVIS: Divided by -
TAPPER: $35,000 every month. This is the money.
DAVIS: But the math is, which I had to figure out myself when I first saw it.
TAPPER: $35,000 times 12 is $420,000.
DAVIS: Divide - he took the -
TAPPER: Yes.
DAVIS: Double everything, divided by 12, $35,000 a month. That was the reimbursement scheme. TAPPER: Yes, and Hoffinger asks if Cohen received 11 checks in
response to those 11 false invoices for a total of $420,000? "Yes, ma'am," Cohen says.
So, this is the falsification.
DAVIS: Yes.
TAPPER: This is the actual -
DAVIS: That's the (INAUDIBLE).
TAPPER: This is the actual crime. And we have Allen Weisselberg's memo which explains how this figure came to be. And I guess the question for the defense attorneys would be, how do you explain this? And we don't have Bill Brennan here. When Bill Brennan comes back -
DAVIS: Without Donald - without Donald Trump testifying, which he said he would do.
TAPPER: Right.
DAVIS: And we are forgetting that he said it. He didn't say if my lawyers allow me. He said he would do. Let's ask Mr. Trump (INAUDIBLE).
TAPPER: But the reason why I'm agreeing or assessing that your excitement about this document is -
DAVIS: At the time.
TAPPER: Because without that document it is much more plausible for Trump to say, we just paid him a monthly retainer of $35,000, or anyone to say, we just paid him a monthly retainer of $35,000. He was my personal attorney, et cetera.
But this document from Allen Weisselberg disproves that. It shows the scheme. Without that document, the prosecution has much less of a case, I think.
DAVIS: I remember the moment, because I always asked Michael, with did the number 35 came. Remember, we put these checks on television in February of 2019 (INAUDIBLE) -
TAPPER: By the way, Cohen is now being shown the check he received from February, which was signed by Eric Trump and Allen Weisselberg.
DAVIS: That was the only one coming from the foundation. Money that was not supposed to be used from the foundation. The rest of the checks were signed personally from his personal checking account.
TAPPER: The check was drawn from Donald J. Trump irrevocable trust account.
DAVIS: Donald J. Trump.
HONIG: Just real quick. We agree -
DAVIS: Yes.
HONIG: The most -
TAPPER: These are the checks, by the way. Here they are right there.
HONIG: Yes. These checks right here, and the handwritten notes we were just looking at, are the two best pieces of documentation for the prosecution. I agree with you.
DAVIS: Right.
HONIG: With respect to what was said in that meeting, that's Michael Cohen's testimony. You can't hide from that.
DAVIS: I don't care what was said in the meeting.
HONIG: Well, the jury's going to care because that's a heart of the matter.
DAVIS: Well, no they won't because the checks speak for themselves.
WILLIAMS: I've got - I've got to point -
HONIG: You don't seem to have a lot of faith in Michael Cohen.
DAVIS: But they don't care what was said in the meeting.
WILLIAMS: No, no, no -
TAPPER: One at a time, guys, one at a time.
WILLIAMS: Sorry. Sorry.
Well, here's where - here's - and I think we fundamentally agree, but here's the problem, documents don't speak for themselves. They are incredibly compelling. And these documents establish a scheme. This - they establish the methods by which they will be broken down. But you have to bring them to life with witness testimony.
Now, Michael Cohen is testifying quite persuasively as to what - what's behind the numbers on the page. But by themselves, in isolation, yes, they established a repayment scheme, but would you convict a defendant on the basis of just that piece of paper alone? No. You would bring in witness testimony to help establish every - every number on that page (ph).
DAVIS: Well, the checks - the checks not just a loan (ph) -
WILLIAMS: And that's some - and that's some -
TAPPER: Yes. OK.
DAVIS: $35,000 checks wouldn't be (INAUDIBLE).
TAPPER: Jamie Gangel. Jamie Gangel.
WILLIAMS: No, it - but it is -
TAPPER: Jamie Gangel.
All right, order in the court. Order in the court. Jamie Gangel.
GANGEL: Just quickly. We don't know how the jurors are going to take all of this in.
DAVIS: Right.
WILLIAMS: Right.
GANGEL: And to badly paraphrase, credibility is in the eye the beholder. But let's just remember, Donald Trump is known to have a tenuous relationship with the truth. Just ask our friend Daniel Dale, who does daily fact checks on him.
I think it's important to remind everybody here, I'm sure the prosecution will address somewhere along the line, Michael Cohen's perjury and his history. Michael Cohen is not getting anything for his testimony in this case. He already went to prison. He doesn't want to go back to prison.
TAPPER: You're saying no immunity. Yes, no deal. No deal.
GANGEL: He has no immunity. If he perjures himself in this setting, he's going back to prison. He does not want to do that.
TAPPER: So, the check stub states that the payment that they're making here is for a retainer agreement. And that is significant because if it is not true, that is a falsehood, right? And that is a false business record. Cohen confirms the description on the check stub was a false statement.
So, again, these are, even though this is a case that has Stormy Daniels mentioned, and all of that, and Karen McDougal, and tabloids, and all sorts of drama, this is a business records case. The crimes are actually in what's being described right now -
CHALIAN: Except, Jake -
TAPPER: Yes.
CHALIAN: Just - the crimes as you described them -
TAPPER: The alleged crimes - the alleged crimes.
CHALIAN: The alleged crimes that you describe in this, but it is in furtherance of defrauding the people because of the election that elevates this, right?
TAPPER: Yes.
CHALIAN: And so all that drama that you talk about is the other piece of this case, which is that this was done because he was a candidate for president and was defrauding the public and trying to (INAUDIBLE) -
[10:00:03]
TAPPER: Well, but also -
HUNT: It was basically a coverup.
TAPPER: But also we should note, the March check from the irrevocable trust was signed by Donald Trump Jr.
