The Lead with Jake Tapper Aired April 26, 2024 - 16:00 ET THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED. [16:00:00] … (COMMERCIAL BREAK) ANNOUNCER: This is CNN breaking news. TAPPER; And we have some breaking news off the top of this hour, a dangerous storm situation right now in Nebraska, as tornadoes have been confirmed on the ground, and a powerful storm is moving for the city of Omaha. … The Lead with Jake Tapper Aired April 26, 2024 - 17:00 ET THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED. [17:00:00] JAKE TAPPER, CNN HOST: Chad, you're actually quite familiar with this area. Tell us about the situation unfolding right now. CHAD MYERS, CNN METEOROLOGIST: Yes, this was a violent tornado just a few minutes ago, crossed Highway 6. Also I80 just to the east of the city limits of Lincoln. Now, this storm has continued to move to the north and will be affecting Bennington, Blair and the like. But this was a violent tornado on the ground that crossed over the interstate. We do know there are damage and also there are injuries here, we just don't know how many but yet. Look at the size of that tornado. Let's get to the maps here. I'll show you what's going on. It could be a continuously violent night all the way through the morning hours. We will see tornadoes likely on the ground throughout the night all the way from really almost Texas into Nebraska. This red box here, that's the tornado watch box, which means they're possible, these pink boxes, which means they're happening. So for you, Bennington, Missouri Valley, that would be Blair right over here, there's I680 Omaha. But what I'm concerned about down here south of Sarpy County, these are more storms here that are violently rotating and are working toward Omaha proper where the storm here missed the western suburbs of Omaha, almost Elkhorn, really. But this is the area that I'm most concerned about over the next 30 minutes or so. Now for Chanute, Kansas, you have some storms to your west as well. They are also rotating. Down in Texas, it is hail and a wind event for you. We will watch the tornadoes because they are on the ground right now. TAPPER: All right, scary stuff. Meteorologist Chad Myers, thanks so much. The other major story this hour, day four of testimony in Donald Trump's criminal hush money cover up trial has just wrapped up for the week. What a week it has been for the former president. Today in court, the defendant watched three witnesses testify, including his former assistant Rhona Graff, as well as David Pecker, his purported friend and former publisher of the National Enquirer, testifying about the deal that Pecker says helped broker with adult film star and director Stormy Daniels. Pecker today in his fourth day of testimony admitting he would kill stories, meaning he would buy them and then not run them so as to influence the 2016 election and, quote, "to help a presidential candidate," candidate being his friend, Mr. Trump. Prosecutors say Trump's falsification of business records over those hush money payments to Stormy Daniels amount to an illegal conspiracy to subvert the election by concealing information from voters. We'll see if the jury goes along with that theory. That is just one of the legal dramas starring Mr. Trump this week. Yesterday, his federal election subversion case was front and center as the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments on his claim that presidents are immune from prosecution for official acts they commit while being president. The justices seem to be leaning toward rejecting his claims of sweeping immunity. Trump also took a loss yesterday when a federal judge upheld the verdict and award in E. Jean Carroll's defamation case against Mr. Trump, denying his motion for a new trial altogether. This week Mr. Trump also finds himself listed as an unindicted coconspirator in both Arizona and in Michigan's 2020 election subversion investigations and indictments. Let's discuss all of this with Ronan Farrow, contributing writer at the New Yorker who's done extensive reporting on David Pecker and his company, AMI, as well as the Karen McDougall catch and kill deal. Ronan's a lawyer, also the author of "Catch and Kill, Lies, Spies, and a Conspiracy to Protect Predators." Ronan, good to see you again, my friend. So today, the defense tried to expose small inconsistencies in Pecker's statements. They focused on a key August 2015 meeting at Trump Tower with Pecker and Trump and Cohen, where Pecker said he agreed to be the eyes and ears for the Trump campaign, flagging any negative stories about Trump to Michael Cohen. The defense asked, "Did you ever specifically use the term catch and kill in the meeting?" And Pecker replied, "No, I did not." But then, under redirect questioning from the prosecution, Pecker reiterated the content of the 2015 meeting, saying, "My understanding is those stories that come up, I would speak to Michael Cohen and tell him these are the stories that are going to be for sale, that if we don't buy them, somebody else will, and then Michael Cohen would handle, buy them or try to make sure that they don't ever get published," unquote. So, even if the term catch and kill wasn't used, you wrote a book called catch and kill, is that not catch and kill? RONAN FARROW, CONTRIBUTING WRITER, THE NEW YORKER: That is the definition of this colloquial term that has emerged around this catch and kill, which was a term that I and other journalists around this first started hearing from AMI employees. It was something of, you know, what's called a neologism that entered into the discourse partly through this, and it was a practice the Enquirer had engaged in for a long time, this sort of and carrot of we'll buy up the unflattering stories, maybe we won't run them, also, you know, we'll run flattering stories about you. They had done that with Hollywood celebrities in the past. And here they were clearly applying it in a political context. And it was apparent to all of us, digging through the trail of money on this, that even if the underlying rumors about affairs or supposed love children didn't matter at all and we didn't care, what did matter was the potential election law implications of the transactions. [17:05:25] As you pointed out on the stand today, Pecker faced Emil Bove, one of these Trump lawyers, who, on cross examination, had two objectives. He tried to pick apart Pecker's credibility by looking at the long history of cooperative statements he's made to law enforcement over the past years about this and finding any little difference. You know, did he initially say that Hope Hicks was present for some of that meeting that you mentioned or did he not tried to impeach his memory about those things? And then the other thing Bove was trying to establish was, were these deals that were also just in the interest of the National Enquirer in the usual sense, that they would have sold issues, and that was the main objective of these transactions. Here's the thing, David Pecker has come off extremely well for prosecutors in this case so far. He's been very composed, he has a sort of avuncular manner during this case so far. And he is repeatedly saying the main point, which is the one you highlighted, which is in the face of all of this, he's saying, no, this was not the normal course of business, even if they were on the margins, ways in which it might have benefited the Enquirer, in the usual sense, there was this other objective here, to subvert the election. TAPPER: Yes. And Pecker acknowledging that the story that he helped kill, that he paid $150,000 to kill one of the stories you helped break, Karen McDougal's silence being bought for $150,000, that that would have been in, I forget, I don't know if it was the prosecution or Mr. Pecker, but tabloid gold was the term that was used because people who read the National Enquirer would have bought a lot of copies of it to read the story about Donald J. Trump and the 1998 playmate of the year. Pecker was the first witness on the stand for four days, what do you know, having researched this so much for your book and for the article about Karen McDougall, what do you know about David Pecker and his relationship with Donald Trump that the jury did not hear? FARROW: Well, one thing is that it was a wider, deeper relationship than is being admitted into this case. There was a safe that contained a lot of materials about Trump. Those materials moved locations several times over the course of this becoming an electoral issue. There was a list that I was shown by a senior AMI source of Trump's stories. Not all of them terribly consequential. Some of them were, you know, his feud with Rosie O'Donnell, but some of them were also potentially unflattering ones. So this was a deep and wide relationship. And Pecker saying over and over again now, this was about trying to help Donald Trump get into the White House is confirmation of something that AMI lied to a lot of reporters, including me about, back when these things were first emerging. TAPPER: Also, that safe helps -- of help explain, perhaps why Mr. Trump has not criticized David Pecker at all. I want to ask you, before you go, because yesterday we saw a major court ruling completely separate from the Trump case, also on a subject that you've broken a lot of stories about, and you think it could ultimately matter for Trump. The New York Court of Appeals overturned Harvey Weinstein's 2020 conviction for sex crimes. Basically, the court said that the lower court made a mistake by allowing women to testify about allegations of sexual assault that were separate from the three for which he was actually charged in that case. You were at the forefront of investigating, reporting a multitude of allegations against Weinstein. You say this ruling could come back to haunt Trump's judge, Juan Merchan, in Trump's trial. Explain. FARROW: Well, it illuminates a shared legal issue that is at the heart of both of these cases. Of course, for activists and for survivors of Harvey Weinstein's alleged crimes, it's anguished moment to hear that one of his convictions was overturned on essentially a question of legal technicality, the way the case was built. But for legal spectators, it's less surprising because this was always a case where prosecutors overextended a bit in the context of the New York rules of evidence on what you can let into a case. He was being charged on three alleged assaults, and they let other women with other accounts of unrelated assaults come in and testify. And I have a new piece out in the New Yorker detailing what exactly the rules are and why that always seems seemed like a bit of an overextension. Now, this doesn't matter that much for Harvey Weinstein's immediate future. His lawyers in California, where he has to serve a separate 16 year sentence, that's essentially going to put him away for much of the rest of his life, are saying, well, it could help us on appeal in California, but that's a much stronger case. I've been in touch with the prosecutors in that case, and California's rules for letting in that kind of evidence of uncharged, alleged bad acts are much more lax and permissive. So that ruling is less in jeopardy. He's less likely to be affected. [17:10:14] What it does affect is the general case law on what you can let in terms of uncharged acts in New York. And that is interesting in the context of this Trump trial, because the Trump trial hinges on charges about one transaction from Michael Cohen to Stormy Daniels. But much of the case prosecutors are building is about the wider pattern about uncharged acts, namely all of these AMI transactions. TAPPER: Interesting. Ronan Farrow, always good to see you. The book "Catch and Kill," it's a great read. We've covered it before on the show. Thanks so much for being here, Ronan, good to see you. Also today, both President Biden and Donald Trump out with big announcements, both saying they would be willing to debate each other. The American people do deserve a formal discussion on the most important issues of our time. When and where that might actually happen, we do not know. Plus, a reversal from a student at Columbia University who led pro- Palestinian protests. He said in a rant that was televised and or at least broadcast, at least in part, on Instagram Live, he said that Zionists don't deserve to live. As other students are echoing that wild, clearly antisemitic claim and more demonstrations are spreading. Is his apology, such as it is, too little, too late? We'll be right back. (COMMERCIAL BREAK) [17:15:16] TAPPER: National lead protests on campuses are spreading to colleges throughout the country, from California to Indiana, from Illinois to Georgia. At Emory University in Atlanta, clashes with police turned physical in some cases as 28 people were arrested, prompting a group of Democratic Georgia state lawmakers to condemn, quote, "the excessive force used," unquote. Negotiations continue at Columbia University to find a way to resolve the conflicts and remove the tents before graduation. One of the issues being debate in all of this is how much are these protests solely rooted in concern for Palestinians in opposition to what the Israel Defense Forces is doing in Gaza? Because we have seen sentiments expressed by some of the groups behind the protests that the Hamas terrorist attacks on civilians on October 7 were mere, quote, "resistance." And some have said that Israel should not exist. Other individuals associated with the protests or in the protests have said wildly hateful and antisemitic things, including, as CNN's Miguel Marquez reports for us now, one of the Columbia student leaders behind the protests on that campus. (BEGIN VIDEOTAPE) KHYMANI JAMES, STUDENT PROTEST LEADER: Zionists, they don't deserve to live comfortably, let alone Zionists don't deserve to live. MIGUEL MARQUEZ, CNN SENIOR NATIONAL CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): Khymani James, a spokesperson for the student protest at Columbia University said this more than once in a personal social media post in January. JAMES: The same way we're wery comfortable accepting that Nazis don't deserve to live, Fascists don't deserve to live, racists don't deserve to live, Zionists they shouldn't live in this world. MARQUEZ (voice-over): Confronted by CNN about his comments, James, unapologetic. JAMES: I think we need to shift the conversation from people's comfort to the hundreds of thousands of people who have been displaced, the tens of thousands of people who have been murdered by Israel. I think it's very -- MARQUEZ: And how do your words help? JAMES: I think it's very important -- MARQUEZ: How do your words help? JAMES: I think it's very important for people to understand that the conflation of anti-Zionism with antisemitism is woefully incorrect and wrong. Again -- MARQUEZ: So do you apologize? JAMES: Again, as I mentioned earlier, we believe in the sanctity of life here at this encampment. MARQUEZ (voice-over): Despite his calls for a class of people to cease existing, James nearly daily expresses his belief that Israel is committing genocide. JAMES: While Israel plans to move forward with its genocide backed by the United States and other western powers, it is important to remember why we are here. MARQUEZ (voice-over): After being confronted, James released a statement saying, in part, "I am frustrated that the words I said in an Instagram Live video have become a distraction for the movement for Palestinian liberation. I misspoke in the heat of the moment, for which I apologize. Some Jewish students at Columbia say they have been called Zionists by protesters just for being Jewish. Other Jewish students have taken an active part in the protests for what they view as an overbearing Israeli response to the October 7 Hamas terror attack and a weak U.S. response to continued bloodshed. JONATHAN BEN-MENACHEM, JEWISH STUDENT SUPPORTING PROTESTS: It's possible that pro-Palestine protests might make some Jewish students feel uncomfortable. But I will emphasize that, you know, the pro- Palestine protests here at the encampment are, you know, that they have fundamental values against hate and bigotry. (END VIDEOTAPE) MARQUEZ (on camera): Now, with regard to Mr. James, the Columbia University says that they will not comment on individual cases. It's not clear if he will face any disciplinary measures because of what he has said so far. But a couple of things are interesting. Typically, he's out here every day. Both the negotiators that are negotiating with the university for the protesters here have distanced themselves from Mr. James, and he hasn't been seen. Usually he's here at 2:30 for their press briefing. He's usually available to the press. We've not seen him at all. Jake. TAPPER: He says he misspoke. I mean, that was quite at length over and over saying that Zionists, which I mean, as a matter of fact, most Jews, and for that matter, most Americans are Zionists, think that Israel has a right to exist. Saying that they, we have no right to live. That's quite a misspeaking, Miguel. [17:20:05] MARQUEZ: There's a lot of misspeaking, and a lot of people are very upset on both sides about the term Zionist and how it has become come to be used, Jake. TAPPER: Yes, I'm familiar with it. I remember when they used to call us neocons. Miguel, thanks so much. The politics lead now and conspiracy theories and misinformation online polluting the 2024 presidential race. It's the subject of a brand new episode of the whole story this week, featuring reporting done from CNN's own Donie O'Sullivan. Here's a preview. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) JULIAN LIGHTFOOT, TRUMP SUPPORTER: The job of the journalist is to ask the questions, allow the person to speak, and just report the facts, what was spoken. Would you like for me to pull up the definition of journalist? DONIE O'SULLIVAN, CNN CORRESPONDENT: That's OK, but thank you, Julian. LIGHTFOOT: OK. I have a God given right to speak my own truth. O'SULLIVAN: But there are facts, right? LIGHTFOOT: The facts have shown that the election was stolen. Whether you're willing to look at that and accept that and really show what's going on, that's your issue, not ours. We want the God given freedom that our constitution and our bill of rights is based on. O'SULLIVAN: God given constitutional rights? LIGHTFOOT: Yes. O'SULLIVAN: They're two different things, right? LIGHTFOOT: No, sir, they're not. Read, R-E-A-D, the constitution. Read it out loud to yourself so that you hear what the words of the constitution say. O'SULLIVAN: God isn't mentioned in the constitution. LIGHTFOOT: Sir. (END VIDEO CLIP) TAPPER: Donie's with me now. What happened after she looked it up? O'SULLIVAN: We found out that God isn't mentioned in the U.S. constitution. And look, that gets to a broader point. And we've heard a lot about Christian nationalism in this country over the past year. You know, I've spoken to many Christian pastors over these past few months, and they will say a lot of people, a lot of Trump supporters will think that the Christian God, a very specific version of the Christian God, is all over the U.S. constitution. And there's this conflation between the United States and between the land of the Bible. TAPPER: Right. O'SULLIVAN: And it's because of that a lot of these folks who are also convinced that the election was stolen, they now view this as a kind of biblical crusade to steal it back and to save America. So, it's misinformation on top of a very perverse view of patriotism and Christianity. TAPPER: Quite a thing. So there's this new Q poll finding nearly three quarters of registered voters are very concerned or somewhat concerned about other countries spreading false information inside the U.S. to divide Americans. But to be quite frank, we don't need other countries to be doing it. We're doing it to ourselves, right? That's what your reporting shows. O'SULLIVAN: Absolutely, yes. Look, I think the -- and we know from reporting from even what Secretary Blinken said today to CNN, there's concerns there that Russia, China, Iran, everybody else is going to be trying to poke divides in the United States. But as you say, Americans were perfectly capable of creating myths and disinformation ourselves. And also just the social media landscape has changed so much in the past few years. What we'll also talk about in this documentary on Sunday is after Trump got kicked off social -- major social media sites after January 6, 2021, so did a lot of his supporters because they were sharing QAnon or election conspiracy theories. And a lot of those people that got kicked off the major social media platforms for sharing misinformation have actually gone to alternative platforms that have radicalized them further. So it's really -- TAPPER: Like parlor or -- O'SULLIVAN: Telegram. TAPPER: Telegram. O'SULLIVAN: Telegram especially. Telegram is this place where you can go in starting just reading about politics and very quickly descend into a world of racism, antisemitism, hate, and God knows what else. TAPPER: All right, Donie Sullivan, I can't wait to see. It's going to be -- O'SULLIVAN: Thanks, Jake. TAPPER: -- terrifying, I'm sure. "MisinfoNation in the Trump Faithful," it's an important report. Watch it on the whole story with Anderson Cooper Sunday night at 08:00 only here on CNN. An American treasurer (ph), Donie O'Sullivan, thanks so much for being here. As you just heard last hour, Donald Trump constantly needs a fact check, but don't let his main 2024 challenger off the hook. Hear what President Biden repeated just today that also needs a bit of a closer look. Stay with us. (COMMERCIAL BREAK) …