The Lead with Jake Tapper Aired April 22, 2024 - 17:00 ET THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED. [16:59:41] JAKE TAPPER, CNN HOST: And welcome to "The Lead." I'm Jake Tapper. This hour, NFL owner Robert Kraft will be here. He's a Columbia alum. The school's Jewish Center for Jewish Student Life is named after him. And now, Mr. Kraft says he has lost confidence in the university. Coming up, his strong reaction to Columbia's handling of tents and at times harassing protests against Israel, prompting questions about the safety of Jewish students on campus. Plus, investigating how Hollywood production work ended up on Internet servers that belong to North Korea. Did someone at a U.S. studio unknowingly outsource animation work? CNN is following the trail. And leading this hour, opening statements and testimony from a key witness today in the unprecedented criminal trial against a former president of the United States, Donald Trump. The prosecution's main message, that Donald Trump and his allies were involved in a criminal conspiracy and cover-up. CNN's Paula Reid is outside the courthouse. Paula, how did the prosecution and the defense lay out their cases today before the jury? PAULA REID, CNN CHIEF LEGAL AFFAIRS CORRESPONDENT: Well, Jake, we heard dueling interpretations of events roughly eight years ago. Prosecutors said, look, this is election interference, plain and simple. They alleged that these payments to Stormy Daniels were part of a conspiracy to influence the 2016 election. Then they walked through, step-by-step, how they allege Trump, Cohen, and the then-publisher of the National Enquirer, David Pecker, worked to suppress negative stories. And then in the opening statement, they briefly referenced the paper trail that will be at the heart of this case. But when it was time for defense attorneys to get up, they insisted their client is innocent. They said, look, there is no crime here, because Trump wasn't involved in this kind of paperwork. He is not involved with things like the 34 documents that constitute each of the counts he is charged with here. Now, they also emphasized that nondisclosure agreements are not illegal. And interestingly, they took aim at Michael Cohen. That's very much expected. They went after his credibility. They suggested that this is someone who is, quote, "obsessed with getting Trump." But it was surprising, Jake, that they also went after Stormy Daniels. Now, it's not a guarantee that she will testify in this case because her testimony is not essential to proving the charges that prosecutors have filed here. But it's clear the defense team expects her on the stand, which is part of why they decided to target her in these opening statements. And then the jury heard briefly from the first witness, David Pecker. It was pretty lighthearted testimony, questions about his age, his occupation, even got a few laughs. That will continue tomorrow. It's unlikely, though, either side will be laughing for long. TAPPER: So last week in court, there was what's called a Sandoval hearing, which basically addressing how much Trump can be asked about some of his past criminal cases if he ultimately decides to testify, as he promised he would. So today the judge weighed in on which cases the prosecution could bring up if Trump testifies. REID: Yeah, there were four big issues that the Trump team was trying to prevent prosecutors from being able to ask Trump about if he takes the stand. And they lost on three out of the four. So, the judge found that they can ask Trump about the recent civil fraud trial against the Trump Organization, Trump and some of his adult children. Then they also said they can ask about violations of the gag order in that case. They can also ask about the Eugene Carroll defamation cases, but they cannot ask about a totally separate line of inquiry, lawsuits related to a, quote, "frivolous lawsuit" that Trump filed against former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. So that can't come in, but the rest of it can. So that's certainly not the way the Trump defense team hoped that would go. And it may give them pause about putting their client on the stand. But I'm not sure, Jake, in talking with my sources, it does appear this is something they're seriously considering, having Trump testify at some point in this trial. TAPPER: All right, Paula. Let's bring in Renato Mariotti, the former federal prosecutor and host of the podcast "It's Complicated." Renato, the opening statement by Trump's lawyer essentially argues that Trump was in the White House and had no idea that false business records were being created and he should not be held liable for the actions of others. How do you rate that argument? RENATO MARIOTTI, FORMER FEDERAL PROSECUTOR: I think that's the best argument that Trump's team has available. In other words, the hush money scheme itself is not what Trump is charged with. He's charged with false statements and business records. And I think his best argument is, you know, he wanted to cover this up because it was going to generate bad press, but he had no idea how that was going to be recorded in the books and records of the Trump organization. Obviously, there are issues with that argument. It's not a perfect argument, but I think that's likely the best argument that they have for an outright victory and what I think his lawyer is going to be focusing on in the weeks ahead. TAPPER: Paula, prosecutors' opening statements referred to Trump's actions as a conspiracy multiple times. For example, here's what they said about a 2015 meeting between Trump, David Pecker from National Enquirer, and Michael Cohen, Trump's lawyer. They, quote, "formed a conspiracy, prosecutors said, at that meeting to influence the presidential election by concealing negative information about Mr. Trump in order to help him get elected," unquote. And we should point out, though, even though they're calling this a conspiracy, Trump's not facing any charges of conspiracy. Why not? [17:04:59] REID: Well, look, this is a difficult case, and we know that because, of course, the Justice Department passed. It's been around for many years. Many legal experts weren't sure if this could be a case that could be successfully prosecuted. So, when you have a case like this, you have to go with what you know you can prove beyond a reasonable doubt. And here they are charging this as falsifying documents, but they're charging it as a felony, connecting it to federal election campaign interference, even though he's not specifically charged with that. The complexity of this case, the way it's being charged right now, Jake, this is going to be something that the defense will seize on. And it's clear, the prosecutors likely would not want to add conspiracy here because it would further complicate the case, likely make it -- less likely that they would get a guilty verdict. TAPPER: And that's something we should underscore for our viewers. This is not going to be easy for the prosecution. This is going to be a lift. And, Renato, the defense is coming out swinging at two of the prosecution's three witnesses, three biggest witnesses. They're painting Michael Cohen as obsessed with Trump, and they're casting Stormy Daniels as an opportunist. They're suggesting that they never had a sexual encounter, Stormy Daniels and Donald Trump. Do you think that's effective? MARIOTTI: I don't think the attack on Stormy Daniels is effective. I actually think that's a mistake on their part. They should actually just say, you know, they can dispute her, whether she's truthful or not. But I think trying to attack her is, you know, not where they want to go. There's going to be people in the jury who are sympathetic to her. Unlike Michael Cohen, she's not a criminal. In fact, she's been the victim of crime on behalf of, you know, her own attorney committed. I think that the attacks on Cohen, though, are going to be very successful. I mean, he's a convicted liar, convicted fraudster. There's a lot for the defense to work with him and I think that's why the prosecution is going to be focusing a lot on the documents and the inferences that they are going to argue can be drawn from the documents. TAPPER: Paula, tomorrow morning there's going to be this hearing about whether Donald Trump has violated his gag order with multiple Truth Social posts that attack witnesses, attack others that he's been told he's not allowed to attack. He is allowed to attack Alvin Bragg, the D.A., and the judge. He also claimed with no proof that undercover liberal activists were lying to the judge to get onto the Trump jury. He's not allowed to attack the jury. Do you think the judge is going to go along with prosecutors' claim that Trump violated his gag order? And if he does, do you think he'll fine him? What will he do? REID: Well, right now, prosecutors are asking for fines for what they allege are at least seven instances of Trump violating the gag order. They also want him to be put on notice that he could be sanctioned. So, yes, I do expect that the judge is going to weigh in here, will likely issue fines, but will that matter? A fine? Of what size? Is it really going to make a dent in Trump's bank account? A lot of issues here, but I think the most significant one for the judge to weigh is any impact of statements like that on the jury. Because we know that these people, they're doing their civic duty, but they are taking on a significant risk for themselves and their families. And if we get into a situation where those people continue to feel under increased threat or they are outed online, that is something that if they go through the alternates and start to get too fewer than 12 jurors, that could create a mistrial. So that, I think, is the most serious thing that the judge has to find a way to address and get Trump to stop doing. TAPPER: Renato, I wanted to ask you, last week when they were going through jury selection, somebody on a conservative channel started putting up details about one of the jurors. And everyone did that, put up details that we were allowed to have because the judge is trying to be transparent. But then started to suggest, oh, I don't know about this juror. I don't know about this one. Donald Trump then re-Truth it on his social media post. Is that a violation? MARIOTTI: I think it is. And just to be clear, what he did, Jake, is he didn't just press the button to re-truth or retweet. He actually typed out the words that this host said, Jesse Watters, word for word. And I think because he did that, he retyped them, I think the judge is more likely to find that he adopted those statements and made them his own, even if he put quotation marks around them. I think the judge is going to find that to be a violation. But I agree with Paula. I don't know how much of $1,000 fine he's going to do about that. But there's no question in my mind that the judge is going to find that he violated the judge's order. TAPPER: Renato, before you go today, after court wrapped up, Donald Trump questioned why this case was even brought by the state to begin with and not by the federal court. Take a listen. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) DONALD TRUMP, FORMER PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: If this were such a great case, why didn't the Southern District bring it, who looked at it, turned it down? Why didn't numerous other agencies and law enforcement groups look at it? Because it was shown to everybody. And very importantly, why didn't the federal elections do anything about this? Because this is federal. It's not state. They're trying to make it a state case. (END VIDEO CLIP) [17:10:00] TAPPER: What's your response to that, Renato? MARIOTTI: Well, falsifying business records is a state offense and not a federal offense. And so, the bottom line is that there is a state offense here that's very straightforward to prove. Prosecutors felt like they could prove this case and the Feds didn't feel like they could prove, you know, the more broader crime of election fraud. TAPPER: Paula, are the members of this jury sequestered? Are they in a hotel with no TVs and no Internet? Or are they allowed to go home potentially watching or reading the coverage around the case? REID: Yeah, they are not sequestered at this point. This is something that, you know, of course, has been considered at one point. But it's not something that's being done in this case. The judge has acknowledged the environment of sort of threats and intimidation that they will face, which is why they are largely anonymous, though we can report some details. Given the gravity of the situation, it is unclear if that's something the judge would reconsider. But it's not expected that they will be sequestered. It will be up to them to stay away from the news. Now, of course, staying away from this story, that means probably no late- night comedy shows, no talk shows. I mean, it's going to be hard to stay away from this case. They're going to have to make a concerted effort. TAPPER: Although I should note that one of the reasons these jurors were picked is because it seemed like a lot of them stayed away from news or at least forming opinions about news. So maybe they're, you know, uniquely qualified for this. Renato Mariotti and Paula Reid, thanks to both of you. Coming up, how Trump's former fixer Michael Cohen found a way to troll his old boss, as court wrapped up today. Plus, will Donald Trump take the stand in his own defense? As he said multiple times now, he will. We'll talk about what he needs to say under oath, if so. And a crisis at Columbia University sparking one of its biggest donors to threaten to no longer give money to his alma mater. What Robert Kraft thinks needs to be done to end the spike in anti-Semitism on that campus. Stay with us. (COMMERCIAL BREAK) [17:15:00] TAPPER: We're back with our "Law and Justice Lead," a, shall we call it, colorful Twitter post this afternoon from Michael Cohen, Donald Trump's former lawyer and fixer at the center of the hush money case. Cohen writing to Trump eloquently, "Hey, Von, let's say, poops in pants. That's not what he said, but you get the point. Your attacks on me stink of desperation. We're all hoping that you take the stand in your defense," unquote. Let's discuss with J. Lee Meihls, a trial consultant with expertise in jury selection and witness preparation. So Lee, prosecution has likely been working to prepare Michael Cohen for his expected witness testimony against Trump. Should posts like this, you know, worry the prosecution at all? I mean, pretty out there. J. LEE MEIHLS, TRIAL CONSULTANT: Yeah, I agree, and thank you so much for having me. Yeah, I think the problem is both sides are making this case about lies. And to borrow from Ted Boutros, famed lawyer at Gibson Dunn, he said, you can tell a lie a thousand times and it doesn't become a fact. And I think that both sides, it's almost like "Seinfeld" has met the reality TV of "Opposite Day." And both sides are using the same themes, election interference, lies. And I think these kinds of posts or tweets or what have you by Cohen I think could become a problem for the prosecution. TAPPER: Donald Trump has indicated multiple times that he would like to take the stand in his own defense. Do you think that's a good idea? If you were advising him, would you tell him that's a good idea? And if he does, because I'm anticipating you're going to say no, if he does take the stand, how will his defense team prepare him for what would likely be a rather brutal cross examination? MEIHLS: Well, I imagine they would do several mock sessions with him in advance, hopefully with somebody not on the trial team who he doesn't have any kind of prior relationship with playing the prosecutor and really putting him through his paces. Just like when he's preparing for, you know, speechifying on the trail, the same kind of thing. But, yeah, you're right. I would advise him probably not to take the stand. But I think he believes he's the only way he can win this case, although I think it's very much a toss-up. TAPPER: Yeah, and we should just really make sure that our viewers and our listeners and readers understand this. Like this is a heavy lift, this case. Judge Merchan decided that if Trump does testify, he can be asked about several different cases in his past that his lawyers didn't want him to have to talk about, including the E. Jean Carroll verdicts. Will that make him less likely to testify, do you think? MEIHLS: Well, Judge Merchan also, though, kind of reigned them in a bit, as I recall reading about the Sandoval hearing that they can talk about verdicts. They can't talk about amounts of, you know, amounts of verdicts which could make a difference. So, it's, you know, it's hard to know, but I think Trump -- he strikes me as somebody who's pretty fearless about those kinds of things and doesn't fear having to answer questions about it. TAPPER: I want to talk for a second about juror number nine who called the court on Friday with concerns, understandable ones, frankly, over the media attention this case is getting. She met with the judge and lawyers today. She's staying on the jury. But could this be an issue with other jurors going forward? And what happens if they decide they want out because it's just not worth, frankly, the threats to them? MEIHLS: The stress. TAPPER: Yeah, the stress, for sure. But also, I mean, there are bad actors out there who might be prone to out jurors who don't want to be outed if they ultimately come down with a verdict that they don't like. MEIHLS: Yeah, agreed. And we already saw two jurors who were sworn in the main jury of 12 who then were dismissed because they came back and said, can't do it. [17:19:58] Unlike jurors who were dismissed during voir dire, who went to the press afterwards because they were allowed to talk, who said, I didn't think that was fair. I'm fair. I could have been a fair juror. But in this case, you know, you've got a juror who's already starting to feel the pressure. And I was surprised Judge Merchan only had six alternates selected. Now, I'm not in the courtroom, you know, please. I don't have a crystal ball. I don't see what's going on. But apparently both sides were there in chambers and got a chance to talk to her. And in other, you know, cases that I've had over 500 jury trials, a case like this, I was surprised there weren't maybe even 12 alternates for this very reason. TAPPER: I also want to get your take on one of the jurors seated in this trial, juror number two, an investment banker with a master's who follows Trump's Truth Social posts, as well as Michael Cohen on Twitter. He says he's seen quotes from Trump's book, "The Art of the Deal." Remember, this this man replaced the original juror number two, who was dismissed after she expressed concerns that, you know, part of her identity was made public by the media, not CNN. And we even had somebody on a conservative news channel questioning that original juror number two and whether or not that person could be relied upon. Did Trump potentially get a break by ending up with this new juror number two who's on Truth Social? MEIHLS: On the surface that, again, not getting to see all the questions that were asked of the jurors or if I'm assuming both sides used all their strikes. But juror two, and then there's another juror on the main panel of 12 who also made statements during voir dire that seemed to be, you know, at least open to Trump's side of the story going in. So, I do think the government's got an issue there because it only takes one to (inaudible) a jury. TAPPER: It only takes one. That's right. Meihls, thanks so much. Appreciate it. MEIHLS: Thank you. TAPPER: Coming up, billionaire NFL owner Robert Kraft, who's also a major donor to his alma mater, Columbia University, his strong reaction to the recent anti-Israel protests and anti-Semitic incidents at the school that have left many Jewish students saying they don't feel safe on campus. Stay with us. (COMMERCIAL BREAK) …