Anderson Cooper 360 Degrees Aired April 26, 2024 - 20:00 ET THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED. … ANDERSON COOPER, CNN HOST: Good evening. Welcome to our continuing special primetime coverage of the fast-moving Trump hush money trial. Day eight saw three witnesses testify. Former National Enquirer publisher, David Pecker, wrapping up a week on the stand. Former Trump personal assistant, Rhona Grafff, seemingly undermining the former president's denial of affairs with Stormy Daniels and Karen McDougal, and a former executive of the bank where Michael Cohen arranged the $130,000 Daniels' payout. Rhona Grafff, under defense cross-examination, admitting she was not testifying by choice, but nonetheless telling prosecutors that she kept contact information for the two women her boss had denied, knowing intimately, including Stormy Daniels' cell phone number and two addresses for Karen McDougal. She also said she vaguely recalled once seeing Daniels at Trump Tower on the 26th floor. Then, when prompted by the defense, she said it might have been in connection with "The Apprentice." Earlier, the defense tried hard to undermine former National Enquirer publisher David Pecker and upcoming witness Michael Cohen. Trump's attorney, Emil Bove, asking if he believed Cohen was prone to exaggeration, Pecker agreeing that he was. At the end of it all, the former president had this to say about the trial so far. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) DONALD TRUMP, FORMER PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: This is eight days that we've all been sitting in this courthouse. This is all a Biden indictment. It's in order to try and win an election, political opponent and nothing like this has ever happened. Eight days. Our country's going to hell. And we sit here day after day after day, which is their plan. (END VIDEO CLIP) COOPER: The former president offered no evidence, of course, to back up any of those claims. There's no evidence that any of what he said is true. Joining us tonight, New York criminal defense attorney, Arthur Aidala; also attorney and former "Apprentice" contestant Stacy Schneider; CNN Political Commentator, Errol Louis; CNN Legal Analyst, Karen Friedman Agnifilo; and Elie Honig; and CNN's Kara Scannell, who is in the courtroom today and will be going through the transcript for us throughout the night. I want to ask this to everybody. Kara, for you, what stood out today? KARA SCANNELL, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Well, I had an actual front row seat today sitting just behind Donald Trump. And when David Pecker was testifying, Trump essentially maintained the whole - the same position the whole time. It would seemed like it was a bit tedious or boring to him. He was just sitting back in his chair with his head cocked in the direction of David Pecker. It's hard to completely make out his facial expressions. But when Rhona Grafff took the stand, we saw his body language change dramatically. I mean, she was testifying pretty favorably about him under cross-examination by his lawyer. And he then had shifted his chair so he could look directly at her. And then when she was leaving the stand, it happened to be at a break and he stood up, which is normal. And it looked as though he was trying to move toward her as if to talk to her. But it didn't seem like they had made any kind of connection. But it was a long day in court and he seemed to sort of just take it in listening, but not really even actively engaging as much of his attorneys as we've seen on other days where he was actively passing notes. Today, he just seemed to be taking it in. COOPER: Elie, to you what stood out? ELIE HONIG, CNN SENIOR LEGAL ANALYST: So the banker, the third witness, is the least sensational witness that we've heard from, but also, in my view, the most important because when people ask, well, where's the crime? It's really important to remember, because we've just spent a week immersed in hush money payments and porn stars and payouts. The crime is in the financing. And now we're finally getting to that. This banker basically started to establish that Michael Cohen was eager to get this line of financing set up. He felt a sense of urgency. And there was some need to be undercover about the way they did it. And it's important to keep in mind, Michael Cohen is the prosecution's star witness. But they have to show he committed a crime. Because if the jury does not believe Michael Cohen committed a crime, it's over. There's no way Donald Trump committed a crime unless Michael Cohen committed a crime. COOPER: Isn't it pretty easy to show Michael Cohen committed a crime, given he spent time in prison? HONIG: Yes, he pled to the federal offense, which is a little different than the falsifying documents, which is the state offense. He'll say he committed a crime, so it won't be that hard. But you want to establish exactly how he committed the crime, which is through this financing, and then tie Donald Trump right to that. COOPER: Karen, how about you? KAREN FRIEDMAN AGNIFILO, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: I think what stood out to me this week is the entire defense is starting to take shape. We're starting to understand how they're going to present their defense. And it's largely through the people's witnesses. [20:05:02] Rather than going on the attack and going on the offensive against the witnesses that have testified so far, they're sort of embracing the facts, but saying, yes, these things happened. Yes, there was hush money paid. But we've been doing that - that was being done for everybody. It wasn't - had nothing to do with the election. This is just a business model. And this is how it went. This is essentially how David Pecker made his money and I just benefited from it, too, so did he. It had nothing to do with the election, nothing to do with the election interference. And the reason that's significant is because, Elie's right, it's all about the records. But that's just a misdemeanor. What gets it to a felony is if it was done in furtherance of some sort of other crime like election fraud. So I thought that was interesting, because sometimes defense attorneys will go on the attack and they'll really attack the credibility and say, this didn't happen. And there was a little bit of that with David Pecker, but not a lot, just a few little things. It was really mostly, yes, this is what happened, but nothing to see here. It's not a crime. COOPER: And Errol, I mean, Pecker has said that this was about the election. I mean, he said he also was concerned about his family, but the election was front and center. ERROL LOUIS, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: Yes. He pointed out that more or less, the family was at best a secondary consideration. I was really struck by the fact that even he had some limits. I mean, he's talking about a very unsavory enterprise. COOPER: Pecker. LOUIS: Pecker, a very unsavory enterprise, paying people to sort of buy their stories and then bury those stories, putting out proactively, I thought that was also interesting, proactively putting out all kinds of false stories against Trump's enemies, that this was a sort of a complete enterprise. But then to also hear him say that there were limits to that, that he didn't want to buy Stormy Daniels' story. He says, I'm not the bank. I'm not going to be an endless source of money to buy off all of your mistresses or all of the people that you want to keep quiet. It was interesting to me that, like, even within this really distasteful enterprise that he was running, he felt like he had some limits. And apparently I talked with some of the lawyers for the Enquirer and was told, don't take that extra step. This could actually have some reputational harm. This could be a problem for you somewhere down the line. And that's why Michael Cohen ended up dipping into his own resources. COOPER: Stacy, how about for you, what stood out? STACY SCHNEIDER, NEW YORK DEFENSE ATTORNEY: Well, today was interesting for me because Rhona Grafff took the stand and I know Rhona Grafff from being on the show. She is the nicest woman in the world. I always wondered how she made it through more than 30 years working for a difficult Donald Trump. But she literally is his gatekeeper. She knows all his schedules. And even though her testimony was really short, the prosecution is being strategic. They got in those nuggets that Rhona knew that Donald Trump had Stormy Daniels and Karen McDougal's phone numbers in his directory. Rhona controls everybody's - all the phone numbers that Donald Trump needs access to. And the fact that Stormy Daniels was in Trump Tower, she has a memory of her being there. And regardless of what the purpose of Stormy Daniels being there, was at that time, when you have Michael Cohen coming in, who the defense is going to completely argue, as we all know, has credibility issues, placing Stormy in the building at Trump Tower is an advantage rather than just Stormy and Donald Trump being in a photograph together. It's sort of little nuggets that eventually, I think, will be tied up later in the case. So that was - and Rhona was also a humanizing witness for Donald Trump. Incidentally, she was a prosecution witness. But she's affectionate about her boss and she always cared for him. And when Michael Cohen comes in, who is the most disgruntled former employee on the planet, I - the defense might remind the jury in closing statement that, hey, Donald Trump is not who Michael Cohen says he is. That might be a strategy we'll see. COOPER: Arthur, how do you think the prosecution's - or the defense is doing? ARTHUR AIDALA, NEW YORK CRIMINAL DEFENSE ATTORNEY: Well, Karen has an enormous amount of experience. And the other night or no, maybe last night, when I said, there's an underlying element of like jury nullification, which is like, okay, yes, this all happened. Really, folks? Are you really going to put this guy in jail for these crimes that you're not even going to understand when the judge reads the charge to you exactly what's going on here. And we just heard from Mr. Pecker that it goes on all the time with celebrities in different aspects of their life, with Arnold Schwarzenegger was running for governor of the biggest state in the United States of America. Like this is underlying current. And to, like, Karen's point, also, there are some times when you can attack and then there's other times where you're like, all right, there's no way I can get around this, right. So let me figure out a way to adopt it and make it my own and use it in the way most beneficial to me because I'll lose credibility with the jury if I try to say that black is white and white is black. [20:10:01] But if I figure out a way to say it's either black and I love black or it's white and I love white or it's a little gray, but not be this like attack dog, what I was wanting to ask was - Susan Necheles question this witness, correct? What was - because I know of her. She's like a mentor almost and that she's a very, very well-known and well-regarded criminal defense attorney. What was it like in the courtroom with having a woman stand up and conducting this and she's really a skilled lawyer. So I'm just curious with the dynamic changed. SCANNELL: Well, the prosecutor who did the question was also female, it was Susan Hoffinger, who asked her the questions. And she went through, she was using graph to get in these documents because they haven't had stipulations on a lot of the business records, so we're going to see a lot of these document witnesses. But when Susan Necheles took the Stand - took the podium and she was asking Rhona Graff these questions, she was leaning into the humanizing factor of Donald Trump. And at one point, after a few questions that she got in, the prosecutors objected and the judge had sustained it and essentially was like, okay, we need to move on to the next topic, because she was drawing out this favorable image of Donald Trump through the eyes of Rhona Grafff. COOPER: Kara, you've been looking through the transcripts, which we get them late - very late in the day. What have you noted? SCANNELL: Well, on the cross-examination of David Pecker today, the core of his - he's a vehicle by the prosecution to set the stage and to talk about this August 2015 meeting in which this catch-and-kill conspiracy, as the prosecution has laid it out, began where he met with Donald Trump and Michael Cohen. So they were trying to go back to that meeting and suggest that it was just like business as usual. It was standard operating procedure for the National Enquirer. So Emil Bove, one of Trump's defense lawyers, had asked Pecker on the stand, I want you - "I want to stick with the August 2015 Trump Tower meeting, okay?" Pecker says, "Yes." Bove says, "At that meeting, the concept of catch-and-kill was not discussed, correct." Pecker said, "That's correct." Bove asked, "And then there was no discussion of a financial dimension to any agreement at that meeting, correct." Pecker said, "Yes, that's correct." So trying to say that there was no blatant conversation about a catch- and-kill and that I'm going to buy the deals. Now on redirect with the prosecution, they tried to put that back together with Pecker saying, I talked about either someone would have to buy the story. If it wasn't me, it was going to be - he was saying I was going to tell Michael Cohen and Michael Cohen was going to find someone who would take care of it. So they put it back together, but this was a strategy by the defense. COOPER: That October meeting in 2015 is important for the prosecution because that's really the origin of this arrangement that then moved forward and we saw the results with the doorman and McDougal and then later Stormy Daniels, even though National Enquirer didn't buy Stormy Daniels' story. SCANNELL: Right, exactly. I mean, this is the beginning of the conspiracy and it was as Pecker testified, it was Donald Trump's idea to have the meeting and that Donald Trump asked him, what can you and your magazine do for me. So this was the piece that Trump's team was trying to chip away at, that they would have published a lot of these stories about Trump's opponents anyway, because that's what the National Enquirer does. And it was good for business for them because they would benefit, there are readers like Donald Trump. COOPER: That was one of the things that came out in the testimony that they had - prior to that meeting, they had already published negative stories, isn't that right, about Ben Carson. SCANNELL: Right, they had - and - well, they went through a couple of things that they showed that The Guardian had already published a lot of these stories about Ben Carson and the National Enquirer was just recycling it and that it was coinciding with poll results. And they also established that the National Enquirer had already done a bunch of negative stories on Bill and Hillary Clinton that predated this meeting. So it wasn't something that was necessarily hatched then saying there was already a pattern here. So trying to really emphasizing that this is what the National Enquirer does and then prosecutors trying to say, but everything was different in 2015, because they did some of these things like bearing the Karen McDougal story that didn't benefit them. COOPER: Right. Much more to talk about, including more from the trial transcripts. Up next, to a point that Errol Louis brought up earlier the moment on the stand when David Pecker admitted there were conditions under which he would publish a story damaging to the former president. We'll be right back. (COMMERCIAL BREAK) [20:18:11] COOPER: In a week on the stand, former tabloid publisher David Pecker gave jurors an up-close look at how he, of course, fought and killed stories on behalf of Donald Trump. This, of course, at the center of the prosecution's theory of the case and why he was their lead witness. Today, under cross-examination, though, he admitted there were limits to that arrangement and conditions under which he would publish something damaging to his friends, specifically regarding the first catch-and-kill story, a doorman's false claim that the former president fathered a child out of wedlock. Here's the exchange between Pecker and Trump's attorney, Emil Bove. Bove said, "So if this story was true," meaning the doorman story, "you were going to run it, correct?" Pecker says, "Yes." "Because you had a fiduciary obligation to do that, right," says Bove. Pecker says, "That is correct." Bove said, "It would have made business sense, to put it mildly, to run such an article if it was true, correct?" To which Pecker replied, "Yes." Now, we should point out in testimony earlier this week, Pecker did testify under oath that if he ran the story, it would have been after the election, which makes the argument that this was to protect Trump going into the election. But as soon as the election was over, Pecker would have run that doorman story because it would have been, in his words, extremely popular or not his exact words, but he said it would have been extremely popular among the National Enquirer audience. Back with the panel, joining us as well is Barry Levine, former executive editor of the National Enquirer. Barry, I'm wondering, I mean, you know David Pecker obviously well. You worked at the Enquirer for a long time. You had some involvement with that doorman story. How do you - what do you make of him as a witness? BARRY LEVINE, FORMER NATIONAL ENQUIRER EXEC. EDITOR: Well, listen, I was there, Anderson, for 17 years. I was actually the first editorial hire for David Pecker back in 1999. It's certainly troubling to be watching this unfold and thinking back to the great years of breaking so many great stories, John Edwards, Tiger Woods, Jesse Jackson's paternity of a child. [20:20:06] I was - I left the Enquirer after the doorman story, two months before the Karen McDougal story, before they got involved with that. And the last Trump story that I did work on was the doorman story. And I mean, David Pecker was absolutely right, had that story turned out to be true and he published it, it would have been a mega sale. It might have sold millions of copies. COOPER: Did you know that he was going to kill it if it turned out - regardless of what it turned out to be? LEVINE: Well, listen, I mean, I remember going back to 2010 when - and I knew back from the early days that David was close to Donald Trump, that they were close friends. Back in 2010, I did an interview with Donald Trump when he was actually thinking about running for president in 2012. And just from the way we presented that story, I'm going to save America, I realized very quickly back then that. This was probably the way it was going to go with Donald Trump. 2012, of course, never happened. COOPER: But did you know he was going to kill the doorman story? LEVINE: Yes. Yes, in fact, we investigated the story very, very rapidly. I mean, on John Edwards, I took two years, my reporting team to prove that story. When the doorman story came down the pike, I talked to Dylan Howard, who was my editor and said, listen, we need some time. I said, I sense that Michael Cohen is going to find out about this and Donald Trump is going to eventually find out about this. But for the sake of the Enquirer, for the sake of our legacy in terms of breaking these types of stories, let us at least work the story. And we did investigate it for a very short period of time, dispatch reporters, got photos of the woman and her daughter. COOPER: But did you know that you were doing that for Donald Trump. I mean, did you know that you were ... LEVINE: No, I had no real idea, Anderson, that there had been an actual arrangement. I didn't learn that until the Enquirer's issue. COOPER: And what was - so what was the process? I mean, obviously, look, the Enquirer broke the John Edwards story. LEVINE: Yes. COOPER: Got - there was a nomination for Pulitzer ... LEVINE: Yes. COOPER: ... for that. But they also - I mean, as this been testified to, Pecker said they put out this story about Ted Cruz's his father, which he said was completely made up. What was that discussion like if you knew a story was just made up but were going to edit it and go with it anyway. LEVINE: Yes. With the doorman, we shut down the story after a brief period of time, sensing that the story probably was false and the doorman was paid the $30,000, which I would have liked to have had more time to investigate it, certainly. COOPER: And is - was that widely known within the company? Like, oh, he's being paid $30,000? LEVINE: No, it was known among the editors. It was a very tight knit group. The lawyers certainly knew. In terms of the Ted Cruz-Oswald father's story, I mean, I was already gone from them and saw the story on the newsstand and thought, what's going on here. The Enquirer's entered the twilight zone to some degree. I mean, things have gone completely over the edge. COOPER: Is there any other plausible explanation for Pecker catching and killing the Karen McDougal story and teeing up Trump and Cohen for the story Daniels thing other than to protect the campaign? I mean, you have no doubt that this or do you have any doubt that this was about protecting the campaign as opposed to what some of Trump's people have been saying is, well, look, he was concerned about his wife finding out. LEVINE: No, it was completely for the campaign. I mean, this was absolutely transactional. And I'm left now still wondering as I listen to the reports of the David Pecker's testimony, why he would sacrifice the Enquirer, why he would sacrifice the legacy of great tabloid reporting. And he said he had - Donald Trump had been his mentor. And like the Edwards story, the campaign aide, Andrew Young, had claimed falsely that he was the father of the child to protect John Edwards. In this particular case, it was an unhinged type of loyalty with Michael Cohen, with David Pecker ... COOPER: And Pecker also testified that he had done this with or that Arnold Schwarzenegger had approached him that other celebrities had. Were you - I mean, did you know about this history? I mean, how common was this sort of catching and killing, even though Pecker didn't use that term? [20:25:01] LEVINE: I mean, I think from his testimony, it seemed like this was happening all the time. I mean, they were rare cases. We never went out to spend time investigating stories and not running them. I mean, we had to fill the book with 40 stories a week. My interest, my - the reporting teams that I directed, we wanted to break stories. These reporters were raring to go, knocking on doors, staking people out, looking at documents. We were never a fan of stories that never made it into the paper. But, of course, it was his paper. He was the publisher and he had friends. And there were times when some good stories probably were buried, unfortunately, yes. COOPER: And the paying for stories, how did that work? I mean, when you're working a story, you have reporters out staking people out, going through garbage or whatever it is, hanging outside their homes. Is there a set sort of like priceless for, I mean, how do you determine what it's worth? LEVINE: I mean, first of all, I think it's - the irony is the big stories that we worked on over the years. It also goes to the early days of the Enquirer, the Gary Hart stories, the O.J. stories. Most of those stories you can't write a check for. You have to investigate. You have to send reporters out. You have to do the digging. You have to knock on the doors. You have to cultivate sources who are going to trust you. That went into the great stories. We didn't - we couldn't write a check for John Edwards. It took two years. COOPER: So - but your sources, you pay sources, I mean ... LEVINE: Yes, and there's no ... COOPER: ... like the people surrounding Karen McDougal, they would get money. LEVINE: Yes, there's no question for exclusivity when you're a weekly publication and you need to hold someone from speaking to another media organization. For a week's time, you're going to put them under some type of exclusivity. It could be a couple hundred dollars. It could be several thousands of dollars. I mean, we operated no differently. I mean, we were bold about the fact that we practice checkbook journalism. And certainly there were individuals who called the Enquirer tip line specifically because they were looking for money. But television shows would pay for video. They would pay still - pay for somebody's scrapbook or still photos. It would justify some payments, but they weren't as direct as the National Enquirer. COOPER: And in terms of what it's become, I mean, it is a shadow of its former self in terms of readership and in terms of - do you think that they - I mean, do you think it will continue? LEVINE: I mean, that's - that is so hard to say. I feel a great deal of sadness over the way Pecker came forward and just talked about checkbook journalism, talking about routinely doing catch and kills. COOPER: Because it made it seem like no matter what you - you're at - what your personal beliefs were ... LEVINE: Yes. COOPER: ... and of the work you were doing for so long ... LEVINE: ... David Pecker was using this to cultivate friends and to be like a remora fish on the shark of Donald Trump. I mean, to kind of be in Trump's orbit. He enjoyed that. LEVINE: Yes. I mean, there's no question about that. I have no ill will towards him. He was a great employer for me for 17 years. However, I do feel like so many other former employees that I see on Facebook and elsewhere that he took what had been a great legacy, part of Americana pop culture and he weaponized it. Generoso Pope would have been the original owner who created the National Enquirer. His son came out in 2019 and said his father, Generoso Pope, is rolling over in his grave because of what David Pecker did in terms of weaponizing the paper for a political campaign. And the - I had to - end up writing a book, "All the President's Women: Donald Trump and the Making of a Predator," trying to do the work that the Enquirer reporters could have done over the years because it was so much on Donald Trump that could have been reported. And had they reported out the Karen McDougal story and Stormy Daniels, it could have changed the course of the election in 2016. COOPER: Barry Levine, appreciate your time tonight. LEVINE: Yes. COOPER: Thank you so much. Coming up next, Kara Scannell is continuing to go through today's courtroom transcript. The complete version of it is just out. What she is finding next. (COMMERCIAL BREAK) [20:33:27] COOPER: We're learning more about a testy exchange on Day 8 of the Trump hush money trial today from the full transcript just released. CNN's Kara Scannell has continued to go through it. She's back with us. So how did David Pecker push back on some of the defense's text on his credibility? Or I guess the text may be a little strong. KARA SCANNELL, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Yeah, they're looking to try to find inconsistencies, so maybe the jury thinks his memory is not so good or it's too rehearsed. But one piece of his testimony that he gave on direct was about a January 2017 meeting. He said he went to Trump Tower. He saw Donald Trump and that Donald Trump had thanked him for taking care of the doorman story and Karen McDougal's story. So then Trump's lawyer saying, confronting with him some notes that an FBI agent had taken after an interview David Pecker gave to them. And in those FBI notes, the notes say that David Pecker didn't recall any gratitude from Donald Trump. So he was challenging him on that, asking him about that. David Pecker says, I know what I remember. This is going back to 2018. I didn't recall back from what I'm saying here is that during the FBI investigation, I know what I said yesterday happened. So I can't reconcile what the FBI interview was, if someone made a mistake or not. But they says, so you can't reconcile because what you said yesterday is inconsistent with what's in this report, correct? Pecker says, yes, but I wouldn't be responsible for this report. But they said, I understand. And so you're suggesting that the FBI made a mistake here. Pecker said, I know what the truth is. I'm not, I can't state what the -- what's here, why this was written this way. I know exactly what was said to me. ELIE HONIG, CNN SENIOR LEGAL ANALYST: So, Anderson, I don't think the defense -- Donald Trump's defense, did much to impact David Pecker's credibility. That's a small ding right there. But they did something better. [20:35:06] They are using David Pecker's testimony to undermine Michael Cohen. The three best words that the defense has on the record for so far came today, prone to exaggeration. They got David Pecker to say, Michael Cohen is prone to exaggeration. And so they're going to do that, by the way, with a lot of other witnesses. If Kellyanne Conway takes the stand, I bet she has negative things to say about Michael Cohen. Maybe Hope Hicks, too. And what you do as a defense lawyer, not my profession, arts, but I've seen enough good ones in action. When it comes time for closing, go folks, their own witnesses, the first guy they put in front of you, David Pecker, said that their star witness is, quote, "prone to exaggeration." If you find that he exaggerated to you, this case is over. So that's a really smart and effective tactic. STACY SCHNEIDER, NEW YORK CRIMINAL DEFENSE ATTORNEY: But you know, Michael Cohen can be restored as the star witness so easily because people forget, or maybe don't forget, that he pled guilty to the same scheme that Trump is now being put on trial for. And people generally, as a defense lawyer, do not plead guilty to things they didn't do. And that plea is locked in. He took a three-year jail sentence for the acts that he claimed in open court when he entered his plea. I did this at the direction of Donald Trump. And you just can't get around that. No matter how bad the defense makes Michael Cohen look, and it's going to be a slugfest when he gets on the stand. I actually cannot wait to see that happen. He's still restored. COOPER: Arthur, how would you get around that? ARTHUR AIDALA, NEW YORK CRIMINAL DEFENSE ATTORNEY: You know, sometimes there's things you don't get around. And I just want to go back to what Karen said, you know, before, and also what Elie said. Like, in other words, you've got to pick your spots. You've got to attack and question people's credibility and their memory and all of that when you can. And when you can't, you know, you try to embrace it and make it your own. Obviously, prone to exaggeration is great. But another phrase I thought was standard operating procedure. That goes to the jury nullification. Like, they're trying to make it out that what Donald Trump is, the prosecution is, is so unique. No one has ever done this before. And that went out the window. As I said, my colleague, Judge George Grasso, who's been in the court every day, he said after his testimony, and I think this broke our last guest's heart, but after his testimony, I wanted to take a shower, because it shows how dirty that industry is, and it enlightens all of us how, you know, you shouldn't believe everything you read in the "National Enquirer." COOPER: Well, that's -- (CROSSTALK) AIDALA: No, no, no, it is -- that's breaking news here on CNN tonight. HONIG: I think the argument that we've heard quite a bit is, well, Michael Cohen already went to jail for this, and so didn't Donald Trump do the same thing? It's not quite right, though, because, first of all, Michael Cohen pled guilty to half the crime Donald Trump is charged with here. He pled guilty to the campaign finance part, but not necessarily the falsifying business records part. So that's number one. Number two, Michael Cohen has been, let's say, reticent, maybe even self-contradictory, about the circumstances of his federal plea. He has been very vocal about the fact that he feels like, to put -- to use Michael Cohen's word, the Southern District of New York, my former office, Michael said, they put a gun to my head. They threatened my wife. I pled guilty to things I didn't actually commit. I committed perjury when I pled guilty. That's Michael Cohen's story now. That's a disaster. That's a mess. Michael Cohen is now offering lies, stacked upon lies, and boy, the defense lawyers are going to follow that. COOPER: The defense cross-examination is going to be -- HONIG: Oh, my goodness. COOPER: -- very long. Kara, the standard operating procedure, which Arthur talked about, you actually have something in the transcript about that, right? SCANNELL: Yeah. This was on redirect with the prosecution. They were getting at the Karen McDougal story, and was it really bought for the standard operating procedure line that the defense was pushing? So the prosecutor, Joshua Steinglass, asked David Pecker, "Had you published a story about a Playboy model having a year-old sexual affair while he was married with a presidential candidate? Would that have sold magazines, you think?" Pecker said, "yes." Steinglass said, "That would be like National Enquirer gold." Pecker said, "yes." Steinglass said, "But at the time you entered into that agreement, you had zero intention of publishing that story." Pecker said, "that's correct." And the prosecutor said, "And despite the fact that publishing that story would have helped your bottom line, you killed the story because it helped the candidate, Donald Trump." Pecker said, "yes." So they're counter and cutting against the standard operating procedure. Obviously, if this was National Enquirer gold, and they would have made a fortune off the headline, they decided not to publish it. And that was the point prosecutors were trying to push, that this was for Donald Trump's candidacy, not for the bottom line of the National Enquirer. KAREN FRIEDMAN AGNIFILO, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: That's also prosecution gold. I mean, to get him to admit that I was willing to do something that was contrary to my bottom line to help a candidate, that's exactly what they need to say. And that's what the prosecution's trying to do in order to make Michael Cohen irrelevant, frankly. AIDALA: But could you just explain to me, because I don't understand, how is that a crime? How is that an element of the crimes or the elements that the judge is going to read after the summation? [20:40:03] AGNIFILO: So this crime is a bump up crime, right? It's basically a misdemeanor plus. So the misdemeanor is if you falsify business records. I think everybody thinks that's the easier part to prove, all right, because he said it was for legal fee. AIDALA: I agree with you. AGNIFILO: OK. But if you did it with the intention, the general intention to either conceal or commit or aid another crime, it bumps it up to a felony. And the way I like to describe it is it's like burglary, right? Burglary is a trespass, right, knowingly enter and remain unlawfully somewhere, which is a misdemeanor. But if you add to that the intent to commit a crime therein, it bumps it up to a burglary. And you don't always know what the crime is in a burglary. You don't know -- AIDALA: OK. But the difference is with the burglary example you just used, it's -- things are happening simultaneously. You're entering and you're committing the crime right there and then, right? AGNIFILO: Not necessarily. You could -- you could have a scenario where somebody opens the door to an apartment, walks in, and gets caught as he steps in the door. And if that guy had a sleeping bag and a toothbrush, he was going there to sleep, that's a misdemeanor. That's a trespass. But if instead he had a safe cracker, and he also had things. AIDALA: But it's all happening simultaneously. He's cracking the door, he's walking in with the sleeping bag, He's cracking -- walking in with the safe cracker. Here, they're saying the misdemeanor took place, and somewhere down the road another crime is taking place. That's the difference between the burglary. AGNIFILO: Yes. AIDALA: Because I am -- I'm not arguing with you, I am trying to figure this out. I have paperwork here that says, I'm trying to figure it out myself. I'm doing legal homework here. AGNIFILO: Think of this as a conspiracy to commit burglary, OK? AIDALA: OK. That's a great question. So how come, Karen, who you -- I mean, you ran in the office, you know this stuff, why didn't they charge a simple conspiracy? AGNIFILO: Because for two reasons. AIDALA: OK. AGNIFILO: A conspiracy -- AIDALA: This is great stuff. I love this. AGNIFILO: I hope you don't mind that. AIDALA: No, no way. I feel like I'm in law school again. COOPER: We've got two hours. I'm enjoying this. AGNIFILO: Because -- because falsifying business records in the first degree is an e-felony. That's the lowest level felony. A conspiracy to commit an e-felony is a misdemeanor. Number one, the statute of limitations had run on all the misdemeanors by the time they indicted this crime. OK. So they couldn't have. And number two, as a prosecutor, you don't charge a misdemeanor because you don't want the jury to compromise on a misdemeanor. You want them to do the felony. And you don't need the conspiracy because the crime that they're saying he used to -- that he intended to conceal or commit, was the state election crime, which is a conspiracy to commit election fraud. It has conspiracy built into it, so you didn't need it. So I guess that was three reasons why they didn't charge conspiracy. AIDALA: I can ask the professor one more question. So professor, here's my question. And I'm not, you know, a wise guy by calling you professor because you're actually educating us. The bump up crime, I know you don't have to articulate what it is. But if the choice, the menu that they're giving us, are all misdemeanors themselves that are out of the statute of limitations, my question is, can a misdemeanor, the false records that's out of the statute of limitations, and another misdemeanor, which is the bump up misdemeanor, is also out of the statute of limitations? Could you put two misdemeanors, both out of the statute of limitations, do those two things equal a felony? AGNIFILO: Well, they have three crimes that they are saying is the bump up, right? State election crime, federal, and tax. AIDALA: Well, they're giving them a choice as a menu. AGNIFILO: Yeah. So the answer is -- the answer is yes. The prosecution theory is yes, but it's never been -- AIDALA: Done before in the history of America. God bless America. AGNIFILO: It hasn't been tested on appeal, but it has been done. But it has not been tested on appeal. COOPER: How do you -- how would you describe this? Is it, I mean, a novel prosecution? Is it pie in the sky? Is it, you know, interesting? How do you -- AGNIFILO: So the only thing -- the only thing unusual about this case is the defendant. This is a bread-and-butter, white-collar crime in New York. This is done by prosecutors all over the state. This is the bread-and-butter of the Manhattan DA's office, the feds. It's like the feds who charge mail fraud and wire fraud for everything. And that you're like, how -- how does that a mail or wire fraud? But it's like the charge that they use all the time. This is done all the time. What's unusual is they don't all go to trial. So this is going -- a lot of them are allowed to plead guilty, or they plea bargain them out. And this is going to trial. And, of course, who the defendant is, is what's also very unusual. COOPER: All right. We're going to take a quick break. That was really interesting. A retired New York state Supreme Court justice, who's known as the judge in Trump's hash money case for more than 15 years, is joining us for a take on the prosecution's claim that the former president continues to violate the gag order and what the judge might do about it in next week's gag order hearing or before. [20:45:06] We'll be right back. (COMMERCIAL BREAK) COOPER: Next Thursday, Judge Merchan has scheduled a hearing on Donald Trump's alleged 14 gag order violations. The hearing comes after prosecutors say that Trump violated the gag order four times in just the past few days. Retired New York State Supreme Court Justice Jill Konviser joins us once again tonight. She's known Judge Merchan for more than 15 years. Are you surprised, Judge, that -- that Merchan has not already ruled on the gag order? JILL KONVISER, RETIRED NY STATE SUPREME COURT JUSTICE: No, I'm not, and I'll tell you why. Originally, when we first had these alleged violations, I thought it would be one and done and we'd be finished. But then, while this is pending and he does a hearing to which the defendant is entitled, there was no summary -- no summary violation here. When the defendant persists and continues to decide he's seemingly violating the order, what's the point? What's the point of doing it to rush it? Think about it for a minute. [20:50:10] The goal -- Judge Merchan's goal here is to make sure both sides get a fair trial and to get a verdict and to do that without -- with as little incident and as much grace as possible. This hearing and these gag order violations are -- to a great extent -- a sideshow. And there are plenty of people out there, maybe some at this table, who want to get Trump no matter what, right? They want to see him in jail or they want to see him held responsible for this. They want his blood. I get that. Judge Merchan is not one of them. He wants to keep this trial on track, make sure he gets the verdict. At this point, the truth is, even if there is a finding of contempt, there's no reason why he needs to sentence him now. He can wait until the end of the trial and deal with it at that point. Quite frankly, the DA's office, I'm pointing to you because you're a DA in Manhattan, the DA's office, regardless of what Judge Merchan does with the contempt, can bring criminal contempt charges against him through the penal law as opposed to the judiciary law, which is what and how Judge Merchan is -- is proceeding. HONIG: The DA's office brought this to Judge Merchan's attention, complained to him, put in a request for an order to show cause very quickly. I mean, the DA's office clearly is taking this seriously. And I don't quite follow the logic of what's the rush. I mean, why leave it hanging out there, especially when Trump continues to recidivate? What would be the harm of the judge coming out. He had a hearing, as you said, and saying, that's it, we had the hearing, here's my findings, you violated, and knock it off. Why -- couldn't that only help the situation? KONVISER: Well, I don't know. I think that no matter what happens, whatever the result at this particular hearing is, the defendant walks out as victor or victim. And that's part of the sideshow. So I don't disagree with you that having ruled is a bad idea. But at this point, again, because I don't think the sentence is going to happen until after the trial, maybe we need to focus on the testimony. HONIG: Just one more quick question. Would you ever, under any circumstance, if you were -- if this was your case, lock up Donald Trump, based on violations of a gag order? If he did it eight more times? KONVISER: Depends on what the violation is. HONIG: If he keeps on posting about Michael Cohen every day, this guy's a serial perjurer, would there ever come a point where you would lock him up? KONVISER: Yes. HONIG: Really? KONVISER: Yes. HONIG: OK. AIDALA: Yeah, all right. I'll vouch for it. I'll second it. Been there -- been there, done it with Konviser. AGNIFILO: And I know Judge Konviser, too. (CROSSTALK) HONIG: I believe you. I believe it. I believe it. I'm not messing with you. AIDALA: I used to bring a lunch bag with me just in case, you know, because I didn't want the bologna sandwich inside. I could bring it inside. But, you know, what Judge Konviser said the other night, you know, the judge is in a tough spot because unlike in the civil case, I think Trump was getting hit with like $10,000 fines. You know, that's -- that starts being a big number for no matter who you are, $10,000 and another $10,000 and another -- here, by statute, it's only $1,000. That's not exactly going to change Donald Trump's world. And especially if he thinks, look, anytime you represent people in the media like Trump is, like a lot of other high-profile people are, in my opinion, they overemphasize the public relations aspect of the trial. They assume the jurors are reading it. They assume the jurors are violating the judge's orders and looking at it. And they're trying so hard to influence them. I haven't found that to be the case. I've found after a verdict, jurors say, yeah, I was in a cab and the thing popped up or I was on my phone. But I've never found a juror after questioning them after a verdict that, you know, blatantly violated. Now they could be lying to me. But I will tell you there are certain defendants who, like, they really emphasize on getting the message out after the jury's impaneled when the jury's not supposed to even see it. ERROL LOUIS, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: The goal might not be to influence the jury so much as really just to provoke a mistrial, right? KONVISER: Oh, you know, that's a win for the defense in any case, particularly. This -- COOPER: What would it take to provoke a mistrial? KONVISER: Well, myriad reasons, like -- yeah. COOPER: But related to the gag order? KONVISER: To the gag order, I guess hadn't thought about that. Maybe if the defendant said something that completely infected the jury by saying something that was so outrageous or so egregious they couldn't be fair. I don't see that the defendant himself could do something that could end up as a mistrial. The jurors could. Or the defendant reaching out to a juror could be a problem. AIDALA: What about if the judge put President Trump in prison for violating the gag order and it really got out and pictures were everywhere of Donald Trump behind bars and it found out that one of the jurors, a juror could come in. I mean, Judge Konviser can tell you. They come in and some of them efface up. Look, I did see, I saw the cover of the "New York Post" and there's a picture of Donald Trump behind bars. KONVISER: I don't think that's a mistrial. I think that's an instruction. AIDALA: That's an instruction. KONVISER: That's an instruction. AIDALA: Just forget it. Just forget about the case. (CROSSTALK) KONVISER: You do a Buford hearing and you get the answers. (CROSSTALK) AIDALA: -- the president of the United States with two Secret Service guys behind bars. [20:55:05] COOPER: But -- but I mean, that's not going to -- that's not going to happen. There was this report earlier that the Secret Service and the law enforcement had met or were meeting to discuss, you know, if in this long shot thing he was put in a, you know, in a cell, how would they actually do that? But Errol, I mean, that's highly, highly, unlikely? LOUIS: Highly unlikely or certainly undesirable, you know? But if his goal, let's assume for a minute that candidate Trump just wants to delay this. That the issues of guilt and innocence and what's going to happen to him and whether or not he loses his freedom is something he would like to deal with on the other side of the election. He could stand up in court. He could say something crazy. He could come outside of court. He could say something crazy. He could deliberately try and push the system to the point where the trial is either delayed or you get a mistrial and you have to start over. COOPER: Just ahead, Kaitlan Collins joins us with an exclusive interview with the former President's Attorney General William Barr about the trial, the immunity hearing, and his response to the former President's mocking Barr's endorsement. (COMMERCIAL BREAK) … The Source with Kaitlan Collins Aired April 26, 2024 - 21:00 ET THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED. … [21:00:00] ANDERSON COOPER, CNN CO-HOST, THE SOURCE WITH KAITLAN COLLINS: 9 PM, here in New York, the eighth day of the Trump hush money trial here, a busy and productive one now in the books. In this hour, for our special primetime continuing coverage, more details from the trial transcripts, we just received, the former President's latest word on whether he'll testify, and what's ahead while trial resumes next week. Kaitlan Collins starts off the hour with an exclusive interview. Kaitlan. KAITLAN COLLINS, CNN CO-HOST, THE SOURCE WITH KAITLAN COLLINS: Yes, Anderson. I am joined here tonight by William Barr, who served as the former President's Attorney General, and who told him that his 2020 allegations of election fraud were not true, but is now said he will support the Republican ticket. Therefore, Donald Trump again. Mr. Attorney General, it's great to have you. I want to talk to you about how you're going to vote in 2024 in a moment. But, putting the merits aside -- I like how you're laughing about that. Putting the merits aside, because I know you don't agree with the merits of the New York hush money case. But you worked for Donald Trump. You got to know him. What do you think it's like for him to be in court, being treated like any other criminal defendant, having to be there four days a week? WILLIAM BARR, FORMER TRUMP ATTORNEY GENERAL: I think it's real tough on him. And I think a lot of the country sympathizes with him. So, I think the longer the trial goes on, the more support he gets. COLLINS: Well, I mean, he has claimed multiple times that this case is being brought, essentially by President Biden. I mean, you know how this works and how the breakdown in this works. Presidents don't have any role, in what a local District Attorney, what case they bring. BARR: That's normally true. And I don't -- and I'm not suggesting Biden is involved. But I think what they're saying is that this former federal official, who's gone up to try the case that this somehow shows a link. I don't know whether it does or not. COLLINS: Yes. But do you agree -- I mean, you worked at -- you were the Attorney General. BARR: I-- COLLINS: Prosecutors leave and go work in other places all the time. BARR: That's right. I think the impetus for this came from the New York prosecutors. I think that they're behind the case. COLLINS: And not President Biden? BARR: I don't know. I don't know. COLLINS: But yes, but you have no basis to believe that the President would be in charge of an investigation that's being brought by the Manhattan District Attorney? BARR: Well I don't know. No, I don't think he's in charge of an investigation. But politics -- this is a political case. COLLINS: Your predecessor was brought up at the trial, Jeff Sessions, because David Pecker, this National Enquirer tabloid king, he got concerned at one point, when he got a letter from the FEC. And he called Michael Cohen, then Trump's personal attorney, to voice concern about that. Michael Cohen told him not to worry, because Jeff Sessions is the Attorney General, and Donald Trump has him in his pocket. Did Trump expect his A.G. to go easy on his friends? BARR: I don't know. I don't know what he expected. COLLINS: What was your experience? BARR: My experience was by the time I came in, he did not -- he did not push me to do one thing or another, on these criminal cases. Now, he tweeted, and made his public views on things known. But he never talked to me about them directly. COLLINS: So, he did not have you in his pocket, you would argue? BARR: It's not a question of arguing. I did what I thought was right. COLLINS: And you never felt any direct pressure from him, on what investigations the DOJ was carrying out. BARR: No. He did not directly pressure me. Yes, as I say, he was out there tweeting and doing things that were embarrassing, and made it hard for me to run the department. COLLINS: That sounds like pressure. BARR: It wasn't pressure. It was just, I mean, for example, I had decided that we were going to not agree to a sentence on Stone that was three times longer than normal. And I'd already decided that. And then, he was tweeting about Stone. So, it just made it harder to make the decision. COLLINS: Because it looked like you were acting at his behest. BARR: Right. Right. COLLINS: On Roger Stone's sentence. BARR: Right. COLLINS: What they were just talking about is this gag order, and the alleged violations from the prosecutors here. They say it's about 14. It's pretty clear if you read the gag order, and then you look at what Trump has been saying and posting about witnesses, and even commenting on the jury here. What does a judge do to deter him? Do fines work? I mean, what do you believe the judge's options are here? BARR: Well, I personally think the gag order could be too broad here. And -- but I think Trump's, and I've said this before, I think Trump basically has the kind of personality that he's always testing the limit. He's always going further and further, and he's usually up against the line. So, that's what gets him in trouble. And that's what creates all these cases, like we're seeing now in the Supreme Court, very fundamental cases about our Constitution, generally because of excess. COLLINS: But do you think there's anything to say -- he's testing that? I mean, how does a judge stop that? BARR: I don't know. COLLINS: You mentioned the Supreme Court, and those very important oral arguments that happened yesterday. It was really fascinating to listen to them. But at one point, his attorneys did concede that some of what Jack Smith has alleged, in his indictment are private acts. And they did concede private acts can be prosecuted. BARR: Yes. [21:05:00] COLLINS: In your view, does that mean that this case can move forward, at least in part? BARR: No, I don't think the case can move forward, in part. I think that if Smith thinks he can try the case entirely, and establish criminal liability, just on the basis of private acts, he could. But if he -- if he requires some official acts, then he has a problem. I think, the problem here is that the government, Smith, sort of very, you know, he had this broad position that there was no immunity for official acts. And that's the basis on which it has gone up to the Supreme Court. And both sides are arguing this sort of abstract general idea. There's no immunity. And then, Trump's people make it seem like there's immunity for everything, even things that are not official acts, like, just if you use the military to do something, somehow you're immune, because the instrumentality, you use is federal. COLLINS: To stage a coup. BARR: Yes, I mean that's ridiculous. COLLINS: Not just a small thing (ph). They -- they-- BARR: Yes, it's ridiculous. Because the question is, is this something you're authorized to do, and have the duty to do, and execute the law and so forth? And the answer, obviously, is not. The President does not have the authority to wage a coup against the Constitution of the United States. He doesn't have authority to kill enemies, I mean, to kill rivals, and so forth. Those are obviously acts that are not authorized or not required for him to do his job. COLLINS: So, why are they -- why do you think they're arguing this? Because they're doubling down. It was first, the SEAL Team Six can assassinate a political rival. Yesterday, it was-- BARR: Yes. COLLINS: --using the military to stage a coup. They said it would depend on the circumstances, whether it counted as an official act. BARR: Well I don't know why they've taken those positions. I think the issue is whether or not the President is carrying out one of his duties. And on the other hand, the extreme position taken by the government seems to be that you can be doing an official thing, like firing the FBI Director or something like that, something clearly within your discretion. And yet, you can be prosecuted for a crime, depending on a prosecutor saying, well, you did it for an illegitimate purpose. And that would just open Pandora's Box, so. COLLINS: Well, I didn't hear the -- I didn't hear the attorney for the federal government arguing that. But what I did hear Trump's attorneys arguing, and this is something that you'll know well about, is Trump's effort to install Jeffrey Clark as the acting Attorney General of the United States. BARR: Yes. COLLINS: And the point for why he wanted to do that was not just picking who he thought should be running the Justice Department, after you left. It was because Jeffrey Clark was going to use the power of the federal government, to pressure Georgia lawmakers, to overturn their legitimate results. I mean, is that an official act of the President of the United States? BARR: Well, that's going to be in that gray zone, that they're going to have to sort out. And that's why I feel it's going to have to go back to the District Court. Was this -- was this the President seeing that the laws were faithfully executed? Or was this a candidate trying to bully and press a state into changing its vote when he knew that the vote had been against him? COLLINS: Well, you were there. BARR: And that has to be sorted out. COLLINS: You were there. Which one do you believe it is? BARR: I'm not going to, you know, I'd have to see all the evidence, and see the case litigated. COLLINS: You were one of few people. I mean, you were up there, up front and close and personal. Was he bullying people, and trying to get them to carry out his will, his personal will, to stay in office? Or was he carrying out election integrity and making sure that the United States has fair election? BARR: Well I wasn't happy with the way he behaved after the election. But whether it was a crime is a different issue. And that requires the government, to have a -- articulate the basis of the crime, and prove it beyond a reasonable doubt. COLLINS: But you-- BARR: And some of these acts are gray acts. Some of these, it's difficult to say whether he was acting as a candidate, or as the top law enforcement officer. COLLINS: But which ones do you think are gray? Because we -- you and I spoke, right when this indictment came out, and you thought it was a pretty good indictment, a pretty solid indictment was I believe the word you used. BARR: Yes. But well I said -- well, I said it, yes. Was not -- it was not an abuse that it had a coherent theory. I said I didn't feel it was compelling, but it was coherent. I think the things that were -- that I think are -- were private, were the recruitment of the alternative slates, and things like that, that were, to me, clearly as a candidate. But where you get into the gray zone is where he has an argument that, hey, I'm the President. I think this election was stolen. I am trying to see that the laws are faithfully executed. And there has to be some precision as to what exact -- where exactly, he crossed the line. COLLINS: So, when his attorney, who was seated right here, last night, was arguing that the fake slates of electors do constitute an official act. You disagree with that? BARR: I don't think they do. I think he was doing that as a candidate. I don't see why it's part of the President's official duties, to recruit alternative slates to support him as a candidate. That seems to me to be a -- not an official act. [21:10:00] COLLINS: When you see his attorneys kind of brazenly arguing about that a military coup could be an official act, that ordering SEAL Team Six to assassinate a political rival could be an official act, did those arguments undermine the integrity of the justice system in the United States? BARR: No. I mean, I think they undermine the case because they were stupid examples, in my opinion. So, for example, when President Obama sent a drone strike overseas, and killed an American, who was apparently in a terrorist complex? That was legitimate. That was the President using his National Security powers. That was within the scope of his responsibilities. But that doesn't mean a President gets to shoot drones, at domestic enemies to eliminate them, and just because they're military equipment, they become an official act. President doesn't have the power to go around killing Americans at will. COLLINS: I hear from a lot of Republicans, who defend Trump, saying, well, that's a hypothetical, and that's ridiculous. But Alyssa Farah Griffin, who was Trump's communications director, posted yesterday and said, that you were present at a moment when Trump suggested executing the person, who leaked information that he went to the White House bunker, when those George Floyd protests were happening outside the White House. Do you remember that? BARR: I remember him being very mad about that. I actually don't remember him saying, executing. But I wouldn't dispute it, you know? I mean, it doesn't sound -- I mean, the President would lose his temper and say things like that. I doubt he would have actually carried it out. I don't, you know. COLLINS: But he would say that on other occasions? You said he would lose his temper. BARR: The President, you know, the President had a -- I think people sometimes took him too, literally. And he would say things like, similar to that in occasions, to blow off steam. But I wouldn't take him literally every time he did it. COLLINS: Why not? BARR: Because at the end of the day, it wouldn't be carried out, and you could talk sense into him. COLLINS: But just because it's not carried out, and you could talk sense into him, doesn't that still mean that the threat is there? BARR: No. I mean, I think -- I don't think the threat is there. The thing that I worry about President Trump is not that he's going to become an autocrat and do those kinds of things. COLLINS: Why not? BARR: Because I don't think he would. COLLINS: But-- BARR: At the end of the day. COLLINS: What's the basis for that, that understanding that you have? BARR: Well. COLLINS: Is it just your own hunch? BARR: That's my feeling, having worked for him and seen him in action. I don't think he would actually go and kill political rivals and things like that. COLLINS: If the January 6 case, the election interference case, doesn't move forward before the election, is that a mistake, in your view? BARR: If it doesn't move forward? No, I mean, I've said earlier on, I would have liked to see that tried before the election. But I think it's gotten too late. COLLINS: But you were talking about Jack Smith, and what he charged. BARR: Yes. COLLINS: Isn't some part that, the responsibility of the Supreme Court, that they could have heard these arguments, back in December? They chose not to. They could rule sooner. They may not rule until June. I mean, they have a role in this as well. BARR: No, I think it was -- it was teed up for them. And they acted very quickly to actually take the case quickly. And I think it hasn't been well-prepared. I think that the Circuit Court didn't do its job. It should have sent it back for a fuller record. And I think the Supreme Court is doing the best they can under these circumstances. COLLINS: Attorney General Bill Barr, I have a few more questions for you. So please stick around. BARR: OK. COLLINS: We're going to take a quick commercial break. And we'll be back in just a moment, with a lot more, including what your former boss has been saying about you, right after a quick break. [21:15:00] (COMMERCIAL BREAK) COLLINS: We're back now, talking with former Trump Attorney General, Bill Barr. And great to have you here. Last time, you and I spoke, when we had you on the show, you told me that you would jump off the bridge, when it came to it, on who you were going to support in the 2024 election. It appears that you have jumped off that bridge, because you said recently you were going to vote for the Republican ticket, come November, which means you're going to vote for Donald Trump. BARR: That's -- yes, I said that's what I plan to do, at this stage. COLLINS: You're saying you could change your mind, maybe? BARR: Well not -- I'm not going to vote for Biden. And I just -- this is a wild time. Who knows what's going to happen in seven months? But I expect, as between Trump and Biden, there's no question in my mind. COLLINS: Oh, so you're kind of suggesting that maybe Donald Trump may not be the Republican nominee? BARR: Or Biden may not be the Democrat or-- COLLINS: Oh, so you would vote for another Democrat, if it were -- a different Democrat was on the ticket. BARR: It's hard to imagine that this party, the progressive Democratic Party would nominate someone I would support. COLLINS: Yes, I know you disagree with them. But I had to ask you about something that Trump posted about you this week, because he responded, in response to you saying you'd vote for the Republican ticket. "Wow. Former A.G. Bill Barr, who let a lot of great people down by not investigating Voter Fraud in our Country, has just Endorsed me for President despite the fact that I called him "Weak, Slow Moving, Lethargic, Gutless, and Lazy" Based on the fact that I greatly appreciate his wholehearted Endorsement, I am removing the word "Lethargic" from my statement. Thank you Bill." BARR: Yes. Classic Trump. What's the question? COLLINS: What's your response? BARR: My response? Well, I mean, obviously, what I said was that I'm very disappointed that this country is stuck with this choice between two people. I don't think either of them should be President of the United States. But given that binary choice, I feel I have to choose Trump. COLLINS: But he's mocking you. BARR: So? It's not about me. I think that that -- I've said this all along. If faced with a choice between two people, neither of which I think should be president, I feel it's my duty to pick the person, who I think would do the least damage to the country. And I think Trump would do less damage than Biden. And I think all this stuff about a threat to democracy, I think the real threat to democracy is the progressive movement and the Biden administration. COLLINS: The Biden administration? BARR: The-- COLLINS: Or President Biden himself? BARR: Biden's -- Biden support for the progressive agenda. [21:20:00] COLLINS: I think a lot of people hear that. And the case that we just talked about, that went before the Supreme Court, essentially, and say how can you see that and say that Biden is a greater threat to democracy? BARR: Because well who's -- where are we losing our freedoms? How are our freedoms being constrained? Being constrained by the press -- progressive government. And democracy, especially from the Anglosphere democracies, the Five Eyes insofar, the threat's never been for autocratic government, on the right, a right-wing strongman. COLLINS: But how specifically is Biden threatening democracy? BARR: The threat to freedom and democracy has always been on the left. It's the collectivist socialist agenda. And that is where we're losing our freedom. Parents are losing the freedom, to control their children's education. And people can't speak their mind, without losing their jobs, and things like that. This is worse than the McCarthy era. Where is that coming from? It's not coming from the right. COLLINS: Those two things that you just noted there, you believe are worse than a President of the United States, trying to subvert the will of the people by overturning the results of the election? BARR: No, I think -- no, I think a -- I think a country, all the things together, like we're not enforcing our borders, we have open borders, we have lawlessness in our cities. We have regulations coming fast and furious. So, telling people what kind of stoves they can use, and what kinds of cars they have to drive, and eliminating cars and so forth. Yes, those are -- those are the threats to democracy. COLLINS: But President Biden is not in control of what some school boards, across the country, are doing. BARR: He's using the administrative-- COLLINS: You think -- you can make the argument. BARR: What are -- these major-- COLLINS: But how is that the same way? BARR: Well major changes are being made in our country without the democratic process, and they're being made by bureaucrats, and these agencies. COLLINS: OK. Pause. You cannot argue that Republicans across the country are not doing that as well. In my own hometown, there's a huge fight at the library, over which books kids can read. BARR: There's always been-- COLLINS: This is not something that is a single-party fight. BARR: You think there are -- don't you think there should be some limits on what people are able to read at very young ages? COLLINS: I just think people -- I just think people look at what you're saying, and they don't-- BARR: Well some people might. COLLINS: And maybe -- maybe even Republicans, who have concerns about what's happening with school boards, or the culture, and don't -- abortion even, don't equate that with January 6th, and Trump's efforts. When you told him the election was not stolen, and he still went out there and said it was stolen, and led a lot of people to believe that. They don't -- those things aren't equal. It feels like a false equivalency. BARR: Well, I disagree. I think and -- I think the country is much more susceptible to losing freedoms, by the excesses of the left, and they have been steadily. And that's clear. People lose their jobs. Kids can't speak out in the classroom. They have to go along with what the professor says, in order to get good grades and so forth. COLLINS: Well Republicans are also trying. BARR: It's become like a Stepford Nation being directed by the progressive elites. COLLINS: Republicans are also trying to limit what could be said in the classroom. But I do want to ask you. Because you're a lifelong Republican. I don't think it's a surprise that you don't like those Democratic -- those issues that a lot of Republicans blame on Democrats. I think there's a question of how they're the same. But I'd want you to listen to what another lifelong Republican, Liz Cheney, said, about your decision to vote for the Republican ticket in November. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) LIZ CHENEY, FORMER U.S. REPRESENTATIVE: Given what Bill Barr has said publicly, about Trump's lack of fitness for office, I think that his assertion now that he's actually going to support Trump for office is indefensible. And then, was frankly, you know, frankly, disappointing to see. (END VIDEO CLIP) COLLINS: She says it's indefensible. BARR: Well that's her view. That's her view. The fact of the matter is, as I said all along, I agreed with Trump's policies. And despite the media, the left-wing media's effort to portray it as a lawless administration, it wasn't. His policies were sound, and that we had victories in courts, and we defended them. I think that Biden is unfit for office. COLLINS: So, you're basically saying that you are voting because you want the Republican policies? BARR: Well, that's certainly part of it. But I also-- COLLINS: Well, I'm glad you said that. BARR: But I also don't think-- COLLINS: Hold on. Hold on. I'm glad you said that. BARR: Yes. COLLINS: Because you told Geraldo Rivera, last year, you may want his policies, but Trump will not deliver Trump policies. He will deliver chaos, and if anything lead to a backlash that will set his policies much further back than they would otherwise be. You're even acknowledging he can't accomplish those-- BARR: No. What-- COLLINS: --Republican policies. BARR: What I was saying was, if you want Trump's policies, if you're MAGA and want to make America great again, the other candidates will be -- will be successful at that much more than he will. COLLINS: But that's not the other candidates. BARR: For the reasons I stated. COLLINS: It's going to be Donald Trump. [21:25:00] BARR: That's right. I'm certainly not going to get anywhere near what I'd like under Biden. And Biden is not a great moral exemplar, OK? And is he following the laws? Here he is, giving away another round of forgiving student loans, after he lost it in the Supreme Court, and he thinks he can get away-- COLLINS: But the ones he is-- BARR: And he thinks he can get away with it, by getting it out the door before the election. COLLINS: But this is-- BARR: He's not enforcing the law on the borders. COLLINS: But those are policy differences that you disagree with. Trump, I remember also when border numbers were at an all-time high in the spring of 2019. So, the idea that border chaos only happens under this administration is inaccurate. But I think people see that. BARR: No. Wait a minute. We had it under control, because we had a program approved by the Supreme Court, called Remain in Mexico that was fully lawful, and had shut down the border. COLLINS: But how can you equate-- BARR: And he came in and lifted it. COLLINS: How can you equate? The border is a real issue. I've been to the border. No one's denying that. But is that the same thing as what you said recently, which was that, the conduct that was involved with Donald Trump, you said trying to subvert and prevent the progress, the execution of probably the most important process we have, which is the peaceful transfer of power after an election. Name one thing that Biden has done that's worse than that. BARR: I think his whole administration is a disaster for the country. COLLINS: Is worse than subverting the peaceful transfer of power? BARR: Did he succeed? COLLINS: Only because Vice President Mike Pence stood in the way. BARR: Yes. He tried to pursue-- COLLINS: And now the people who are lining up to be VP again say that they will not do what Mike Pence did. BARR: Yes. I mean, look, I was very loud in saying I thought it was a whole -- the whole episode was shameful. And I'm very troubled by. And that's why it's not an easy decision. But I think when you have a Hobson's choice, you have to pick the lesser of two evils. COLLINS: You don't see this as the definition of putting party over country? BARR: No. No. Not because -- because, unfortunately, we're having a -- we're in a situation, where the policy differences between the two parties are very, very vast. There's a huge gulf. And so, in that kind of-- COLLINS: And you're saying Trump can achieve the policies? BARR: I think he's going to have a much harder time achieving them. COLLINS: But you're voting for -- so, you're voting-- BARR: And I also think-- COLLINS: So, just to be clear, you're voting for someone, who you believe, tried to subvert the peaceful transfer of power, that can't even achieve his own policies, that lied about the election, even after his Attorney General told him that the election wasn't stolen? And as the former chief law enforcement in this country, you're going to vote for someone, who is facing 88 criminal counts? BARR: Well, look, the 88 criminal counts, a lot of those are in -- and I've said are-- COLLINS: Even if 10 of them are accurate? BARR: The answer to your question is, yes. I'm supporting. I'm supporting the Republican ticket. COLLINS: But can you say that you're voting for Donald Trump? BARR: And I-- COLLINS: Because you're not saying his name. You just say you're supporting the Republican ticket. BARR: I've said I -- as between Biden and Trump, I will vote for Trump, because I believe he will do less damage over the four years. I believe our -- I believe we're facing the most dangerous situation we've ever faced in the world, a lot of it invited by Biden's weakness. And to have Biden out there, for the next four years, given all the threats we face, including handing the keys to the nuclear weapon to Iran, with a Vice President like Kamala Harris, endangers the country. That alone should be reason to vote for the Republican ticket. But there are a host of other reasons. Our country is unraveling in many ways. The rule of law is unraveling. COLLINS: So, you want to put someone back in the position with immense power, who you believe disrespects-- BARR: I think people will-- COLLINS: --the rule of law? BARR: Well no -- I think he will enforce the law. And we'll have greater safety in our cities. COLLINS: Mr. Attorney General, I think a lot of people will have some stark views on that comment. We'll, if he is reelected, we'll bring you back. Mr. Attorney General, thank you so much for being here. Anderson, back to you in New York. COOPER: Kaitlan, thank you. I want to get everyone's take on what we just heard. And joining us is legendary reporter, best-selling author, Carl Bernstein as well. Carl? CARL BERNSTEIN, JOURNALIST AND AUTHOR, AUTHOR, "CHASING HISTORY: A KID IN THE NEWSROOM": I'm looking for the right Yiddish word to try and characterize what we've just-- COOPER: You can start with oy. BERNSTEIN: Oy. What we've just heard. I think even by Washington standards, in the age of Trump, we've just seen Bill Barr engaging in a kind of craven hypocrisy that is emblematic of him, despite his quiet tones, and of a huge, huge problem, which is Republican leaders, who understand the horror, danger of Donald Trump, and refuse -- and been there to witness it. Listen to what he said. He saw the sedition that he called out. Barr did. Look at him calling Trump before, a brazen criminal. And to get up and say that Donald Trump should be the next President of the United States? It's astonishing. It's a kind of hypocrisy. Attorney General, dedicated to the rule of law, and then he talks about how Trump has no dedication to the rule of law. [21:30:00] I think, first of all, it's a great interview. It is so revealing. And that's not to say that Barr doesn't that -- doesn't score some points in it. COOPER: Right. BERNSTEIN: But it is a defining document of where we are. And that kind of blind loyalty to a seditious president, as Liz Cheney pointed out, and really-- COOPER: Well how much of it is about wanting to-- BERNSTEIN: Yes. COOPER: I mean, I don't know what his motive is. But how much is about wanting to still be relevant in Republican circles, to go on lecture circuits, to be? BERNSTEIN: I can't be in Bill Barr's head. Intellectually, he is an extraordinary person, to listen to. But -- and is this a case of you'll never work in this town again, if you -- if you don't come out and support Donald Trump for president? It is a breakdown of a kind of moral. And he is a real moralist. If you look at Bill Barr's speech, at Notre Dame in February, four years ago, it's an extraordinary-- COOPER: Yes. BERNSTEIN: --document. COOPER: Karen, what do you think? KAREN FRIEDMAN AGNIFILO, CNN LEGAL ANALYST, FORMER MANHATTAN CHIEF ASSISTANT D.A.: I mean, it was just astonishing that he would say that the Democrats took away more rights. He kind of forgot about women, and the fact that it's the Republican Supreme Court that took away a woman's right to choose. And the freedoms that are being taken away from people. And he blames -- he blames crime on, he says, there's lawlessness. That's a local issue. That has nothing to do with the President of the United States. That has to do with local police. COOPER: FBI numbers actually show crime going down. FRIEDMAN AGNIFILO: Crime is-- BERNSTEIN: It's going down. FRIEDMAN AGNIFILO: Exactly. And in the cities, crime's going way down. In Manhattan, murder is down 28 percent, and shootings are down 38 percent, just from last year, and to date -- year-to-date. So, in addition to the fact that crime is down, across the board, it is not something that you normally think the President has anything to do with. I think Kaitlan's right about the border and other issues. But I think that it struck me as sort of sad, because he really changed his tune from where he was before. And he's really not thinking about things that really mattered to him before, like law and order, like the crimes that Donald Trump is accused of committing, that he witnessed himself, that he talked about himself, and he came up and talked about himself. And now that he's changing his tune. COOPER: Elie? ELIE HONIG, FORMER FEDERAL PROSECUTOR, SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NY, CNN SENIOR LEGAL ANALYST: If I could pick up on that, the one thing Bill Barr knows best is law enforcement. He's one of two men ever to be Attorney General of the United States twice. It is wildly irresponsible, for Bill Barr, to stoke this really conspiracy theory that the Manhattan D.A.'s charging this case. And look, I've raised questions about the wisdom of bringing it. But to stoke this conspiracy theory that that charge is somehow a Biden prosecution? He should have said -- he knows better. He should have said, Of course not. It's ridiculous. The Manhattan D.A. has no connection to anything in the federal government. He is independently elected. And what the former Attorney General tried to do is cite this one person, on the team, Matthew Colangelo, who was at DOJ, and went over to the D.A.'s office. That is true that that happened. But that is all that there is to this. To make that into somebody acting at Joe Biden's behest, feeds into straight-up conspiracy theories. COOPER: Well and I want to bring in Kaitlan. Kaitlan, you pointed out in the interview that plenty of people go from Department of Justice to other places. HONIG: Yes. COLLINS: Yes. And of course, no one knows that better than the former Attorney General, who's worked at the Justice Department, multiple times, and is very well-versed in how that works. So, I mean, that's just. COOPER: You had previously interviewed Barr. I mean, what's your takeaway from this? Which by the way, was an incredible interview. BERNSTEIN: Yes. COLLINS: It's remarkable, just in the sense of, one, this is someone who saw up close and personal what those several weeks in between the 2020 election and January 6, were like. Obviously, Bill Barr left his job in December. But a lot of it had to do with what Trump was saying about the election. And I'll never forget when Bill Barr came out and said there was no widespread election fraud. And Trump kind of lost his mind, when he saw that interview from the Oval Office. And to hear it, here we are four years later, hearing Bill Barr saying that he will vote for Donald Trump, and he actually said that his name, not just the Republican ticket tonight, is remarkable. And one thing I think is a question for me is, is it kind of a permission structure, for other Republicans, who maybe are torn on how to vote? Or independent voters who say, I'm not sure how I should vote on this. I wasn't comfortable with what Trump did. And then see, even his own Attorney General, who has been no short of a critic of him, come out and say this? [21:35:00] And I think really one of the most remarkable -- remarkable moments was Trump mocked Bill Barr, for saying that he was going to vote for him. He posted that. His whole team was kind of like laughing about it, and saying that. It was funny until you hear Bill Barr say that he was unbothered by that, and that he truly thinks that the Biden policies are -- he can equate them with what happened in that period, to try to overturn the legitimate election results, and he said well he didn't succeed. But Anderson, everyone who is lining up to be Donald Trump's Vice President, this time around, and at least the ones that I've spoken to, have said, what Mike Pence did that day was wrong, and they would not do what Mike Pence did. So, it's not a given that what happened-- COOPER: Well then-- COLLINS: --on January 6, 2020 would happen again. COOPER: To me, I mean, that was one of the most extraordinary moments that him downplaying efforts to overturn the election, by saying to you, did he succeed, as though that makes it all right? I mean, had Mike Pence not done the right thing? BERNSTEIN: Exactly. COOPER: I mean, it's extraordinary. COLLINS: It's the same thing with the execution part. That was a part that -- you know, I couldn't stop because we had a -- I had lot more questions to ask him. But Alyssa Farah Griffin said that Bill Barr and other top cabinet officials were present, when Donald Trump, one time, suggested executing the leaker of whoever said that he went to the bunker, when The Washington Post and CNN reported, he went to the bunker of the White House, because they were worried about the protests. And Bill Barr said he remembered him being irate. He didn't remember that specific call for executing them. But he said that it happened other times, where Trump was really angry, but it would die down, and no one took it seriously, simply because it didn't happen. I mean, it's just remarkable to hear a top cabinet aid confirm that, yes, the President of the United States, at that time, did say things like that. COOPER: Right. And talked about it, but more than -- more than once -- COLLINS: More than once. COOPER: --the idea of executing. And you could almost see, during the interview, him sort of realizing well, clearly, you're going to pursue this about like, well, what other cases are there, and he clearly sort of started to kind of step back from that. But it seemed like it happened more than once. COLLINS: I mean, it just speaks to what was happening inside the White House, and what that looked like, and what became kind of the norm. And then -- and it's remarkable. COOPER: Yes. COLLINS: It speaks for itself. COOPER: Yes. BERNSTEIN: One thing. There's a long list of courageous Republicans, going back to Ike stopping Joe McCarthy, going back to Barry Goldwater going to the White House and saying to Richard Nixon, we are going to vote to convict you in a Senate trial if you don't resign. Where has Bill Barr been, to reform this party, since he left office on December 20th-- COOPER: Yes. BERNSTEIN: --at the end of the Trump presidency, COOPER: Kaitlan, just an extraordinary interview. BERNSTEIN: Really. COOPER: Thank you so much. COLLINS: Thank you. COOPER: Carl's not going anywhere. We're going to get everybody's thoughts, on the strength of the D.A.'s case against Trump so far, as they close out the first week of testimony. We'll be right back. [21:40:00] (COMMERCIAL BREAK) COOPER: It seems even more likely that Donald Trump will not be taking the stand in his own defense. Just last week, he insisted he would testify in his New York criminal trial, although he used the word, would, not will. But in a new interview with Newsmax, he was notably non-committal. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Are you more or less likely, you think, to take the stand in the Manhattan case, right now? I know two-- DONALD TRUMP (R), FORMER U.S. PRESIDENT AND 2024 PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: Well I would if it's necessary. Legal scholars and experts, they're saying what kind of a case this is? There is no case. (END VIDEO CLIP) COOPER: And Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist, Carl Bernstein, is with us, as well, along with my panel. There is no scenario -- or do you believe there's a scenario under which he would actually take the stand? BERNSTEIN: No. No. No. Given the allegations? And no, not a chance. One of the things about this trial though is these supposed Justice Department people, who put the prosecutor here up to this. I do not know a single person, in the Biden White House, who doesn't think and hate that this case was brought. HONIG: Right. BERNSTEIN: And thinks that it was a great mistake to do so. And that there are these three other cases that have an incredible gravity that go to the heart of Trump's seditious conduct, and they would much rather this case have never been brought. I don't know anybody that thinks that they like the idea of this case-- HONIG: So interesting. BERNSTEIN: --going ahead. HONIG: And doesn't that just sink the conspiracy right there? Because if Joe Biden was so eager, to get Donald Trump at any cost? I mean, Jack Smith has brought two way stronger charges. So why would he be-- BERNSTEIN: Yes, of monumental-- HONIG: --bothering with this secret mole and the D.A.? Yes. BERNSTEIN: Of monumental-- HONIG: Right. BERNSTEIN: --consequence to the future of democracy. HONIG: Yes. BERNSTEIN: And where this country goes. COOPER: How, Karen, how soon do you think Michael Cohen would be called to testify? Because you probably don't want to have him be the last witness, do you? ARTHUR AIDALA, NEW YORK CRIMINAL DEFENSE ATTORNEY: No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. FRIEDMAN AGNIFILO: I think you're going to see some people, like you saw this week, putting documents in, and things that you don't really know what the significance is, of that is yet, like what was the significance of a certain calendar entry that they put in today for Rhona Graff? I know, there was a -- they said that Donald Trump had lessons on how to use a teleprompter. What was that about, I mean? But for some reason that was put in. There's little things like that that will be put into evidence, dates and phone numbers and bank records, that I think are a setup for other witnesses, perhaps someone like Michael Cohen, who will then be able to talk about what those -- what those mean. But I just wanted to say to you, Mr. Bernstein, I'm one of the people, who thinks that it was a good idea to bring this case, and that it is an important case, because what is coming out in the evidence, especially through David Pecker, in my view, just from seeing what's coming out, is this was really about trying to influence an election, just like the other cases, only-- BERNSTEIN: Absolutely. The four cases fit together. That's very true. FRIEDMAN AGNIFILO: Yes, they -- they fit together. And the-- BERNSTEIN: Undermining elections. [21:45:00] FRIEDMAN AGNIFILO: Undermining the election. Only this is the one he actually succeeded. I'm reminded that he won this election in 2016, in three swing states, by 80,000 votes. AIDALA: And you think storm that of the fact that a multi-billionaire, named Donald Trump, who everyone knows about all the women he's been with, and Marla Maples and this and that, that if it came out, he fooled around with Stormy Daniels, that would have changed the election? ERROL LOUIS, HOST, "THE BIG DEAL," SPECTRUM NEWS, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: He thought so. That's what-- STACY SCHNEIDER, NEW YORK CRIMINAL DEFENSE ATTORNEY, FORMER APPRENTICE CONTESTANT: He thought so and-- AIDALA: No. He's just protecting. SCHNEIDER: Yes. AIDALA: Not that it was going to swing the election. This is 2015. He didn't even think he was going to be President of the United States. Trust me. I knew people around him. Nobody was -- I spoke to Rudy Giuliani the day after. LOUIS: Well he didn't spend all that money-- COOPER: Right. But-- AIDALA: Nobody was more surprised he won the election-- LOUIS: He didn't spend all that money for nothing. AIDALA: --than Donald Trump. He's just-- COOPER: But there's -- but there's going to be testimony about being-- AIDALA: My friend, he spent what a half a million dollars? That's like, you know, you've given me well-- (CROSSTALK) COOPER: There's going to be testimony about the Access Hollywood tape, and the impact, the bombshell impact that had on the campaign. FRIEDMAN AGNIFILO: Exactly. COOPER: And how that actually changed the desire to silence Stormy Daniels. FRIEDMAN AGNIFILO: And I think what -- what I think what the prosecution is going to try to do, and I think today, I think you're right, everybody knows now and everyone's desensitized to it. But back in 2015, and 2016, other than the people around him, I think the general public didn't know. And I think this was-- AIDALA: That he was a playboy? FRIEDMAN AGNIFILO: I think that that this type of the Access Hollywood tape was very devastating. And I don't think they wanted -- look, right-wing conservatives, as part of his base, I don't think they wanted it out there that he was cheating on Melania with Karen McDougal, and then cheating on Karen McDougal with Stormy Daniels. COOPER: It-- FRIEDMAN AGNIFILO: And so. COOPER: It was untested at that point, would the Evangelicals actually embrace him, as they did. And, you can make an argument, there were some who thought, well, of course, once people know the full sordid details of his life, they're not going to. Of course, little do we know, actually, of course, that they actually would embrace him, and just ignore it, despite all the stuff they have said. But back in 2015, he was an untested candidate. FRIEDMAN AGNIFILO: Exactly. COOPER: And to what fights against your argument-- AIDALA: But wasn't he known as the most eligible bachelor? COOPER: What fights against your argument is, it's Donald Trump, we now know, and Michael Cohen, who held this meeting, who called David Pecker in for this meeting. It wasn't David Pecker coming as previously thought. It was them saying it. AIDALA: I'm not saying-- (CROSSTALK) AIDALA: --I'm not saying they don't -- that they didn't desire again tell me if it's the same (ph). SCHNEIDER: No. No, because you -- of course, his obvious defense is, I've been buying stories and controlling my media, for my whole life. That's my brand. The difference here is he was running for office. And yes, celebrities have gone to the National Enquirer. They've bought and suppressed bad stories. And that's not a crime. If you have the money to buy silence, buy it. The difference in this case and why it was brought, which goes to the heart of what we've been talking about is Donald Trump was no longer just a celebrity, at the time this was happening. He was a celebrity running for office. And I think his attorney, Todd Blanche, his lead counsel, made a mistake in the opening argument, because he made a statement to the jury, and I think it's going to come back to bite him later on. He said there's nothing wrong with influencing an election. It's called democracy. And I think the Manhattan D.A.'s office would beg to differ, because when you are influencing an election, ill-lawfully, under New York state law, that's called an illegality. COOPER: Yes. SCHNEIDER: And that's what this case is really about. AIDALA: But Anderson, I was agreeing with what Carl said, in terms of the power of the case, or the ramifications of his actions. In other words, trying to stop the presidential election and January 6th is like a 10 on a scale from one to 10. COOPER: Yes. AIDALA: Paying off a prostitute, basically, for not talking her mouth -- shooting her mouth off about an affair, it's like a two-and-a-half. So, to Carl's point, they're saying the White House isn't happy that this is the case that went first. COOPER: Sure, of course. AIDALA: It's because people are like laughing about it, compared to let's stop the peaceful transfer of power. COOPER: Yes. BERNSTEIN: But what it's all about, in every instance is undermining a free and fair election. COOPER: Yes. SCHNEIDER: Exactly. COOPER: I want to thank everybody. We're going to leave the story for a few moments, for breaking news out of the Midwest. Video, one of at least -- of at least 60 tornadoes that touched down, in at least five states today. More on the damage and the forecast, next. [21:50:00] (COMMERCIAL BREAK) COOPER: We have more coverage of Donald Trump's criminal trial, in a moment, on CNN. But tonight, we're also monitoring a severe weather system that spawned dozens of violent tornadoes, touring -- that tore across at least five states today. Take a look this video, comes to us from a storm-chaser, who got very close to a tornado, in Lincoln, Nebraska. The one tornado in the area ripped through a local business, with 70 people sheltering inside, authorities say at least three people were injured. At least 60 tornadoes have been reported. Want to get right to CNN Meteorologist, Chad Myers with the latest. So, what is the damage in Nebraska, Chad? CHAD MYERS, AMS METEOROLOGIST: It is -- it is bad, Anderson. We know that at least for a while, this was at 150 to almost 200 miles per hour, as it went from that Lincoln picture that you see there, to what was almost west of Omaha, into the Omaha suburb of Elkhorn. And so, solidly EF-3, EF-4 damage. And you know what, the pictures tell the story. There was so much damage here, with 67 tornadoes. So 66 other than that one right there. COOPER: It's incredible. Were there warnings? MYERS: Oh, absolutely there were warnings. Because, you can see it. Look, this is called -- we call this a LP, low-precipitation tornado, which means it's visible. There are probably thousands of videos of this tornado, online, which means the Weather Service saw it too. It wasn't hidden in some cloud, or some rain-wrapped tornado that you don't even know that's there. This is the reason that we had the warnings that were so well-done. [21:55:00] Even the Police Chief of Omaha said the warnings that were put out by the Weather Service today saved lives. We had warnings in time. They knew it was coming. They got into their shelters, the safest place in their houses. And without a doubt, the Weather Service saved many lives, when you look at that. COOPER: And where's this severe weather heading next? MYERS: Yes, that's a good question, because it's heading to the same spot. This is going to regenerate tomorrow to be in the same areas that we have right now. Even Des Moines, right now, I need you to really pay attention to this. There are still tornado warnings for you. Some of these storms are still rotating. In the dark, at night, storms do lose their power, so that's happening, but not enough power to take away the tornadoes for now. Another hour, hour and a half, yes, this will be done. But look at where the tornadoes, look at where the storms are, again tomorrow, from Oklahoma City to Texas, back into the same places that got hit today. Exactly what first responders don't need, obviously. COOPER: Yes. MYERS: Where people are trying to pick up their lives, and put their pieces back together. So far, Anderson, there have been zero reports of fatalities-- COOPER: Yes. MYERS: --which, to me, is amazing. COOPER: Yes. I mean, those images are extraordinary. Chad, thank you. MYERS: Yes. COOPER: Our special primetime coverage of the historic Trump trial continues next. (COMMERCIAL BREAK) CNN NewsNight with Abby Phillip Aired April 26, 2024 - 22:00 ET THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED. (COMMERCIAL BREAK) [22:00:00] ABBY PHILLIP, CNN ANCHOR: The banker, the gatekeeper, the publisher, the second week of Donald Trump's trial was all about the witnesses who can put the former president at the very center of a criminal conspiracy to defraud the American people. Good evening. I'm Abby Phillip and you're watching a special edition of NEWSNIGHT. LAURA COATES, CNN ANCHOR: And I'm Laura Coates in Washington, D.C. And today, I'm really redefining what water cooler talk really means. Rhona Graff, the longtime Trump secretary, took to the stand and she did it, by the way, not by choice, she was there under subpoena. And she added small but critical details to the prosecution's case. Remember, she was the one who entered contact details for Stormy Daniels, for Karen McDougal, into the Trump Organization directory. She told the jury the adult film actress whose silence Trump tried to buy allegedly was simply labeled, well, what else, Stormy, with her cell phone number filled in. Graff said that she saw Daniels on floor 26 of Trump Tower. That's where the office chatter, of course, comes in. Graff thought that she was in contention, perhaps, to appear as a contestant on The Apprentice. PHILLIP: Now, the day closed with the least name brand witness, somebody who probably would be anonymous to most Americans, even those most familiar with the details of this case against the former president. Meet Gary Farro. He is Michael Cohen's former banker. He worked at First Republic. And if that bank sounds vaguely familiar to you, it's because it crashed and burned last year. Farro was the one who put the rubber stamp on a brand new shell company for Cohen, Resolution Consultants. That was the company that the fixer used to pay the porn star. Let's bring in our panel. We have Gene Rossi here, former federal prosecutor, former Trump Attorney Tim Parlatore, Elliot Williams, a former deputy assistant attorney general, and Marcus Childress, former January 6th investigative counsel. Everyone, thanks for being here. So, first of all, Trump keeps complaining about this courthouse. Is it really that cold? I mean -- TIM PARLATORE, FORMER TRUMP ATTORNEY: I've tried several cases in that courthouse. It was hot when I was there. But I think they've done some renovations. So, I guess the -- ELLIOT WILLIAMS, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: But, no. The answer is no. It is a dingy 19, I think 60s or 70s style bonfire of the vanities might be the best way to describe it, the courthouse that probably hasn't undergone the kind of renovations that you think the government will not -- PHILLIP: That's part of the charm. Elliot, I know you also have some details from this day in the courthouse. What did we learn? WILLIAMS: So -- and a day of trial looks like this. It's -- I mean, there's a lot -- PHILLIP: It's actually quite a lot more than the last couple of days. WILLIAMS: Yes. No, it is a lot more than the last couple of days. And it's dense. And today wasn't a day of major bombshell testimony, but there were some very interesting both human moments, because this all deals with sex, money and allegations of lies. And so we can talk through some of the sort of most compelling bits of testimony here. Interestingly, there was cross-examination where the purpose of Stormy Daniels came up, and this whole question of why did the Trump Organization have her name and her phone number, and this was on cross-examination from Susan Necheles, the defense attorney. We can even read the portions of the transcript that come up here. So, Necheles asks, am I correct that prior to Stormy Daniels coming up to the office at Trump Tower, you recall hearing that President Trump discussed whether Stormy Daniels would be a good contestant on The Apprentice? And Graff says, I vaguely recall hearing him say that he was one of the people that may be an interesting contestant on the show. Necheles says, okay. So, the prosecutor just referred to her, I think, as a, quote, adult film actress. Correct? Rhona Graf, Trump's assistant, says, yes. Necheles, and you understood that to mean that she was colloquially speaking a porn star, right? Rhona Graf says, I'd say that's a good synonym for it. Now, there's few things happening here, too. And more than anything else, they want to establish even if there were these allegations of misconduct with the former president, he had a reason for having her at Trump Tower, Stormy Daniels at Trump Tower, which is that he was vetting her for a possible position, you know, on the Celebrity Apprentice. So, this was on cross-examination. This was -- PHILLIP: And it was the purpose really to cast doubt on whether this affair actually happened? WILLIAMS: Whether it actually happened or not, the simple fact is she had a reason for being in their records and their -- [22:05:00] GENE ROSSI, FORMER FEDERAL PROSECUTOR: Can I just say something? WILLIAMS: Yes. ROSSI: in any trial. You should underpromise and overperform. In your opening, underpromise. And one of the Achilles heels of the defense is basically saying these relationships did not happen. I respectfully disagree. I think this witness was outstanding. And that is a bombshell because Trump has said, I don't even know Stormy Daniels, let alone have any relation. PHILLIP: That's the point, yes. ROSSI: And that is going to hurt them in front of the jury because they overpromised. COATES: And at the same time though, think about this, they don't really have to prove that the allegations of an affair or any interaction, shall we say, is true, right? This is about falsifying business records. And the premise of the prosecution's case is the allegation and the news being out there was so problematic for this ream, the campaign, that they wanted to shut it down. And so having it out there, that that was the reason that he wanted to silence her or buy her silence is really -- it doesn't matter if it actually happened, right? And that the problem though with this, and I have to tell you on the direct, and we were kind of talking about this while it was actually going on, was, at the time, we all said, hold on a second, why is Stormy Daniels in a directorate? I thought this was a very transactional, one-time relationship of sorts, not a not a Karen McDougal scenario, it was a one-time thing and she's a part of the directory? Meanwhile, Karen McDougal also there with two addresses, email address, telephone numbers as well. That was pretty stunning in that moment that she's part of a directorate. PHILLIP: Can I offer one possible explanation and, Tim, maybe you have some insights into this? Donald Trump typically uses other people to get in touch with who he wants to talk to. He is a very old school guy, until recently, hadn't really used -- he didn't really text people. He didn't really use a cell phone in that way. He would say to Hope Hicks, hey, Hope, call X, Y, and Z. So, to me, that is the reason. Now, I mean, the jury might need to understand that, but that would be the reason. PARLATORE: Yes, that's absolutely true. I mean, a good portion of my relationship with him, I would get calls from other people saying, please hold for Donald Trump, or please hold for the president. And so, it does make sense that you want to explain why these people are in there, but, you know, to his point, it doesn't matter whether any of these affairs happened or not. All that matters is that there is a story that they don't want to be out there, and whether it's true or not, they want to kill it. I mean, it's the same thing with the doorman story. Whether it's true or not, or whether, you know, Ted Cruz's father is involved in the Kennedy assassination, all of these stories, whether they're true or not, is irrelevant to the underlying facts. MARCUS CHILDRESS, FORMER JANUARY 6 INVESTIGATIVE COUNSEL: The documentary evidence that came in today, I found to be -- it's not what we're talking about right now, but I think it's going to be critically important during closings. We all know, we've all done closing arguments, that we -- through the secretary today, that we were able to get -- or the prosecution, I'm not on this team anymore, but that we were able to get a lot of documents. COATES: The Royal We, Royal We. That -- all right. CHILDRESS: Forever We. PHILLIP: But talk to us -- I mean, what documentary evidence do you think is the most significant? CHILDRESS: So, I'll just use the Michael Cohen -- the shell company documents today. That's going to be critical in the timeline going back to when the news broke of Stormy Daniels. Now you have a marker. Now you have a marker of when Michael Cohen was able to create this shell company. And you can walk the jury through a timeline and you can display those documents. You can go to the direct testimony. You can reference the cross-examination. And that's not sexy right now, but I guarantee you in four to five weeks, it will be when you're giving that closing. ROSSI: I want to supplement what you said, the timeline will be crucial, and you're right, but according to -- I didn't read the transcript. I read somebody writing about it. But according to the testimony, Michael Cohen called the banker and said, I really, really, really need to set this bank account up. And that corroborates his testimony when he's going to say by October 28th, we were desperate to get this deal done because we were scared to death it could decide the election. COATES: It also corroborates David Pecker, right? Go back to how we first -- everything is about repetition, right, and primacy and recency. Think about what are the earmarks of things that a song that gets in your ear, a great sermon, a great speech. It's all about repetition. And so the more you hear it, the more it goes into the brain of the jurors that you believe it. So, David Pecker had to set the stage already and said, listen, I wasn't paying for this. I didn't want to do this, but he also wanted to have a shell company. He wanted to have -- I don't want a direct line between the Trump Organization and me. I ultimately ripped up this contract, all that stuff. Now, the jury is thinking, oh wait, you know what? I've heard this before. Now it rings true to me. WILLIAMS: You know, what's another bit of repetition you're going to keep hearing, and you heard today on that bit that I told you, the words, porn star. And it is in the interest of the defense to keep reminding the jury about what the jobs are of these people, what they are doing and seeking to do subliminally or maybe even explicitly is dirty up the witnesses and make these folks who are coming in to testify. [22:10:03] Because there is someone on that jury who is going to have a problem with the fact that you're talking about infidelity, adult film actresses. COATES: But it cuts both ways. WILLIAMS: It does. PHILLIP: I mean, I feel like that's as much a problem for Donald Trump as it is for anybody else. WILLIAMS: On the infidelity part. But on the porn star part, it comes to a credibility point, absolutely. PHILLIP: So, Elliot, I know you have a little bit. Give us, give us a little bit more from…