Anderson Cooper 360 Degrees Aired May 02, 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, "ANDERSON COOPER 360": Good evening. Welcome to our continuing special coverage of the Trump New York hush money trial, day 10 (INAUDIBLE) prosecutors put four more alleged gag order violations before the judge and the defense paint expected witnesses Michael Cohen and current witness Keith Davidson as the true culprits in this case, not Trump. Davidson, as you know, represented Stormy Daniels and Karen McDougal and secure deals for their silence about alleged affairs with Trump in the crucial months before the 2016 election. But any effort to make them the villains and Donald Trump the victims countered by prosecutors who played the phone conversation Michael Cohen secretly recorded and CNN exclusively obtained, featuring Donald Trump taking an active role in the Karen McDougal deal. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) MICHAEL COHEN, FMR. PERSONAL ATTORNEY FOR DONALD TRUMP: I need to open up a company for the transfer of all of that info regarding our friend, David, so that - I'm going to do that right away. I've actually come up and I've spoken ... DONALD TRUMP, FORMER PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: Give it to me and (INAUDIBLE) ... COHEN: And, I've spoken to Allen Weisselberg about how to set the whole thing up with ... TRUMP: So, what do we got to pay for this? One-fifty? COHEN: ... funding. Yes, and it's all the stuff. TRUMP: Yes, I was thinking about that. COHEN: All the stuff. Because - here, you never know where that company - you never know what he's ... TRUMP: Maybe he gets hit by a truck. COHEN: Correct. So, I'm all over that. And, I spoke to Allen about it, when it comes time for the financing, which will be ... TRUMP: Wait a sec, what financing? COHEN: Well, I'll have to pay him something. TRUMP: No, pay with cash ... COHEN: No, no, no, no, no. I got it. TRUMP: ... check. (END VIDEO CLIP) COOPER: A forensic analyst from the D.A.'s office also took the stand today testifying to the chain of custody of that recording that you just heard. Now, this was necessary because unlike in most trials, the defense is refusing to stipulate that certain evidence entered into the record is true. As to this morning's contempt hearing, prosecutors asked Judge Juan Merchan to sanction the former president for a second time this week for an additional four violations, they say, of his gag order. After court today, he mentioned those restrictions and cited them inaccurately to make this false claim. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) TRUMP: Well, I'm not allowed to testify. I'm under a gag order, I guess. I can't even testify. TODD BLANCHE, DONALD TRUMP ATTORNEY: (INAUDIBLE) ... TRUMP: Now, we're going to be appealing the gag order, but I'm not allowed to testify because this judge, who's totally conflicted, has me under an unconstitutional gag order. Nobody's ever had that before. There's never been any abuse like this before. This conflicted judge ought to get out of this case. He shouldn't be - he should not be having this case. He gives us nothing. It's such a rigged court. So I'm not allowed to testify because of an unconstitutional gag order. We're appealing the gag order and let's see what happens. (END VIDEO CLIP) COOPER: That plain and simple in legal terms is nonsense. He has every right to testify in his defense. He has said that he would. Then last week, he waffled, saying he would testify "if it's necessary." Now, he seems to be laying the groundwork for backing out entirely. As always, plenty to talk about, back with us is New York defense attorney, Arthur Aidala, former federal prosecutor, best-selling author, Jeffrey Toobin, CNN NewsNight Anchor, Abby Phillip, The Source's Kaitlan Collins, CNN Senior Legal Analyst, Elie Honig and the New York Times' Maggie Haberman who was in court today. Maggie, what was it like in court today? MAGGIE HABERMAN, CNN POLITICAL ANALYST: It's surreal every day, but I would say that the strangest moment came toward the end of the day, and it was a rough day of testimony. Keith Davidson, the former lawyer for Stormy Daniels, testified for a long time, and Trump's lawyers actually did get some dings into him on cross-examination. It got very tense. He got very flustered. He ended up sounding pretty weaselly as he was giving answers. But prosecutors played this exchanges between - that Cohen secretly taped. One was with Keith Davidson and then the other was Michael Cohen and Trump, which you just played. And that tape is basically what jurors were left with as the most dramatic testimony for the day. There was some other not particularly interesting testimony at the very end, as you say, from a custodian of records, basically saying that he had checked out Cohen's phone and that it was all forensically true that this material came from it. But we still don't really know what the jury thinks, and I think that's something really important to bear in mind. COOPER: You described the Cohen-Trump recording as a doozy. HABERMAN: Well, I mean, look, we've heard this tape for ... COOPER: Which, again, is a legal term. HABERMAN: ... so - right, thank you for clarifying it for me. It's been six years almost today that we know about this tape, and so it's obviously not new to us. But I think when you were hearing it, A, as a juror and, B, in the context of that courtroom, it just sounded very different, particularly at a time when Trump's lawyers were arguing that this was essentially all just Keith Davidson and Michael Cohen. [20:05:08] They didn't make this argument explicitly, but they were leaning into the idea that these two were just freelancing and that Davidson was essentially extorting Trump. And so that didn't get dispelled from that tape, but the idea that Trump didn't know would have. KAITLAN COLLINS, CNN ANCHOR, THE SOURCE: It's also the first time that the jury has heard from Trump. HABERMAN: That's right. COLLINS: Because, I mean, we see him talk, going into the court, coming out of the court, saying things that aren't true, as you just showed there, even though Todd Blanche, his attorney, shook his head yes when Trump (INAUDIBLE) ... COOPER: But the idea that he's not allowed to testify is just ridiculous. HABERMAN: It's not true. COLLINS: It's not true. And Trump looked at him for affirmation and he shook his head yes. But in the courtroom, Trump is very quiet. He whispers to his attorney something that they were kind of annoyed about. It sounded like today when it's reported how often they're speaking, but you can't hear what he's saying. And for the most part, he has his eyes closed a lot during the prosecution asking questions of the witnesses he was watching as Keith Davidson was being cross- examined today. But this is really the first time the jury has actually heard Trump's voice, which I think is what makes that tape so remarkable. ABBY PHILLIP, CNN ANCHOR, "NEWSNIGHT WITH ABBY PHILLIP": There's so many elements of that tape to analyze. And if you're the juror and you're going home for the night and you're replaying it in your mind, maybe some of them have heard it before. To Maggie's point, it's been out there for a while. But first, just the fact that it exists, I think, is incredibly notable. Michael Cohen's tone in the call is also incredibly notable. Trump, then kind of correcting him about the means of funding this thing, that strikes out to you immediately, that he wants it to be in cash, not "finance." There's so many elements of it that if you're - just from a human perspective, not a legal perspective, that replays in my mind. I imagine the jurors would be thinking about all of those aspects of it as they're trying to analyze that tape. COOPER: Let's here from the lawyers. JEFFREY TOOBIN, CNN CHIEF LEGAL ANALYST: But what I think today we saw almost for the first time is there is a coherent theory of the defense in this case. You may not buy it and the jury may not buy it, but the theory here is that Michael Cohen and Keith Davidson cooked up a profit-making scheme to get money out of Donald Trump on the eve of the election. And, by the way, Michael Cohen made over $400,000 out of this scheme, which he got later in 2017 and that's the defense here. It's not crazy. And it may yet be refuted by the prosecution. But at least it is a theory of why Donald Trump is innocent. ARTHUR AIDALA, NEW YORK CRIMINAL DEFENSE ATTORNEY: Are you taking my job? TOOBIN: What? Yes, but (INAUDIBLE) ... AIDALA: (INAUDIBLE) ... TOOBIN: No, I'm just trying to be accurate. AIDALA: (INAUDIBLE) ... TOOBIN: I know. I'm trying to be fair. AIDALA: So since you did my job for me, Anderson, the part that I'm still struggling with is that an individual who was the president of the United States, who wants to be the president of the United States, said something as really so foolish that I can't testify because of this gag order. As a citizen, I'll take my hat off as the defense attorney, as a citizen, that's scary, actually. I mean, you learn that in, like, sixth or seventh grade, right? You have a constitutional right to defend yourself. You learn about Miranda rights. Anything you say can be held against you. And, look, I feel my heart goes out to Todd Blanche, who I don't know you do. But you're in that position and Trump is such an overpowering presence, and he says something ridiculous like that and your instinct is to protect him, but you want to correct him and that's a disaster. COOPER: Elie? TOOBIN: So what - why does (INAUDIBLE) ... PHILLIP: I mean, he didn't even attempt to correct him. HONIG: It's a ridiculous statement, but it doesn't impact the trial. TOOBIN: Yes, right. AIDALA: No, it doesn't impact the trial but ... HONIG: Let me talk about this tape for a minute. Because that, to me, is maybe the single most important piece of evidence in this case. This is the tape Michael Cohen made secretly of Donald Trump when Michael Cohen was the lawyer and Donald Trump was the client in 2016. I promise ... COOPER: Which shows you a lot about Michael Cohen's confidence in his client. PHILLIP: Yes. Yes, and hear it in his voice. COOPER: Yes. HONIG: So that's the first place I was going to start. And I have scrutinized this tape. I have listened to it. I have a piece coming out on it tomorrow. I've listened to every word of it. I hate this tape from a prosecutor's point of view. First of all, the circumstance is how shady is that for Michael Cohen to secretly record? Arthur Aidala, have you ever secretly recorded one of your clients? AIDALA: I mean, I think about it, but I'm not going to do it. HONIG: Exactly, so ... COLLINS: So this is the Trump universe, it's different (INAUDIBLE) ... HONIG: Right. But it's on Michael Cohen, right? And it shows how - so that's point number one. Point number two, the tape itself, it's good for prosecutors in that it shows for sure Donald Trump knew about the payments to Karen McDougal, knew it was $150,000 and was okay with it. But that's not the crime. I keep saying the crime is in the accounting of it, the structuring of it. And when it gets to that, Trump is fairly ignorant of that. And Cohen says to him, and I quote, no, no, no, no, no, I got it. And later he says, leave the stuff, leave the nuances, the details, to Allen Weisselberg and me and that's the defense right there. Donald Trump knew they were paying hush money. Hush money is not a crime. The structuring of it, that was Michael Cohen and Allen Weisselberg. They kept Trump out of it. COOPER: Maggie? HABERMAN: That's what we know from the tape. HONIG: Right. HABERMAN: I would make the argument that we don't know what Cohen is going to testify to. We do know that Cohen versus Trump would be or Cohen versus the defense, will be a he said, he said and then the jury is going to have to decide which of them they believe. [20:10:05] HONIG: Yes. HABERMAN: We have seen the prosecutors already extracting testimony from various witnesses that is not favorable to Michael Cohen, because what they're clearly trying to do is take the air out of a big reveal when the defense cross-examines Cohen. But I don't know that all we know is on this tape, that all we can definitively know is on that tape, but I don't know what else is going to be said. And I do think that the documentation in this case, look, I think we have not heard a whole lot about what the actual crime is. We have heard a lot about a conspiracy. We have not heard a whole lot about what the actual crime that they have charged him with, and I think that you will hear the defense talk about that. But I do think that the documentation in the case and that evidence is pretty significant. It's not just relying on testimony. COLLINS: Yes, I will say the Trump team feels really good about how the cross-examination of Keith Davidson went today. PHILLIP: That's true. COLLINS: Especially where he was talking about Michael Cohen and how Michael Cohen called Keith Davidson, kind of using him as a therapist to lament the fact that Trump was not going to bring him into the administration. And Keith Davidson testified that Cohen seemed suicidal at that point because of everything that was happening. But where they felt that it was really the most effective was going after Davidson, where it got incredibly contentious for the first time that we've really seen it be that high of a temper, I think, inside the courtroom as they were drilling down on him, questioning him about whether or not he was extorting Trump, likening the other people that he has worked with when it comes to Hulk Hogan, Lindsay Lohan, Charlie Sheen and kind of trying to fluster Keith Davidson, which it seemed to be somewhat successful. I don't know what - how it read in the courtroom. HABERMAN: It read in the court - it was tough sledding. I mean, it was really hard watching it just in the will of the court. COLLINS: Which is not how he was two days ago. HABERMAN: No, two days ago he was polished and he got almost timid. One thing that was very striking to me and my colleagues watching this is that when David Pecker was walking, who was the former AMI head, was walking through his details of his engagement with Michael Cohen and really this business of sleaze that he was in charge of, he didn't seem ashamed at all. He was almost carefree about the whole thing. Keith Davidson seemed really embarrassed as he was getting pushed on the kinds of deals that he was seeking over and over and over again in terms of pushing celebrities for I have this client who claims they had an affair with you or this, that and the other. And in that way, Pecker is actually much more like Trump, where there is just this sort of I'm not going to be shamed out of the ring. Davidson came off angry, sheepish, uncertain, hostile at certain points and he got his back up a few times and seemed to find his footing. But it wasn't - it was not a great outing for him. There's a reason. And Emil Bove has been very strong in these cross examinations, so he - and he's one of the defense lawyers. AIDALA: Maybe one of the reasons and the lawyers here can talk to it, that the difference between Pecker who's a businessman, he's in this just to make money. He doesn't care as lawyers. We have like these ethical obligations. We're taking oaths. Where's there's supposed to be a moral high ground. You're not supposed to be extorting people. You're not supposed to be accused of extorting people as a lawyer. You're not supposed to be investigated for extorting people as a lawyer and all of those things happen to him. So I can see him being much more defensive than Pecker saying, yes, I did this and I made the company millions of dollars. TOOBIN: One thing I think we learned today was why David Pecker was put first by the prosecution. Because the argument in the prosecution is look, Pecker and Trump in person, not some deputy, but Pecker and Trump made this agreement to protect him before the election. All the rest of this is the execution of that. And sure, these people are - the defense is Keith Davidson is terrible. Michael Cohen is terrible. But the question the prosecution is going to ask at the end of the case is who benefited from all this? Who is the person who is above it all of the fine details, but who set this process in motion? The argument that prosecution is going to make is that it was Donald Trump and he was - he set it in motion and he was the beneficiary. And all these sleaze fact - all these sleazy people were just doing what Trump wanted. COOPER: Well, also is the argument that all these sleazy people are living in the Petri dish that Donald Trump has built. HABERMAN: Well, I think that's the real risk and I'm curious what the lawyers on this panel think, but I think that is the real risk for the defense with what the jury hears. Does the jury hear that there's gradations of this or does the jury hold Donald Trump accountable for everything they're going to hear about Michael Cohen, about David Pecker, about Keith Davidson, that this was what was taking place. Michael Cohen worked for Donald Trump for a really long time. And it's probably going to be a big stretch for the defense to ask the jury to believe that Michael Cohen was off doing his own thing all the time. PHILLIP: Yes. HABERMAN: I mean, especially given that relationship. PHILLIP: I a hundred percent agree. I mean, the question comes up, I mean, how do you substantiate whether Donald Trump was fully aware of all the contours of it? Not just that the payment was being made, but that it was being made for the purposes of the election, et cetera, et cetera. [20:14:59] But one of the things that I think some of these witnesses have - has established is that Trump uses emissaries, intermediaries to execute the things that he does. And from a common sense perspective, if you're on the jury, I don't think that's hard to understand that a person like Donald Trump would use a Michael Cohen to do his dirty work. I mean, it's just not that hard to bridge that gap from just a common sense perspective. COOPER: We've got to take a quick break. Next, John Berman, who's been going through today's trial transcript with a closer look at the picture that jurors are getting of Michael Cohen. Also the very latest from university campuses around the country, including UCLA where police moved in overnight. (COMMERCIAL BREAK) [20:19:33] COOPER: We talked before the break about how the defense in cross- examining former Stormy Daniels and Karen McDougall attorney, Keith Davidson tried to leave jurors with the impression that he was in effect trying to shake down their client. Also to cast doubt on the credibility of expected upcoming witness, Michael Cohen. Six years ago, CNN Sara Sidner talked to Davidson about his dealings with Cohen. He had this to say about the financial arrangement at the heart of this trial. [20:19:59] (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) SARA SIDNER, CNN ANCHOR & SENIOR NATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Did Michael Cohen ever indicate to you that he was paying this $130,000 for Stormy Daniels out of his own personal finances? KEITH DAVIDSON, FORMER ATTORNEY OF STORMY DANIELS AND KAREN MCDOUGAL: Yes. SIDNER: And back then, did he say to you, look, I'm having to take a loan out of my house to get this done? DAVIDSON: Uh-uh. SIDNER: Was that a yes? DAVIDSON: No, no, there was never any conversation about that. (END VIDEO CLIP) COOPER: Joining us now with more of Keith Davidson's final hours on the stand, John Berman. The prosecution asked Davidson about that exchange in that interview. JOHN BERMAN, ANCHOR, CNN NEWS CENTRAL: Yes, very specifically. And once again, told the jury, the same thing, basically, he told Sara Sidner, Steinglass, the prosecutor asked, "My next question is, did you - directing your attention, I guess, to early April 2018, did you go on CNN and say that Michael Cohen used his own funds to pay Stormy Daniels?" Davidson says, "I believe so." The prosecutor asks, "And why did you say that?" Davidson says, "Because I understood that he did." Prosecutor: "Based on the same statement that he made at the time of the transaction?" Davidson says, "And even later on, that December 9th conversation that I had with him at the department store where he said he had not been reimbursed." Just so you know, in that conversation, Davidson said, "That effing guy is not even paying me the $130,000 back." So you can see here, he wants, again, is saying it was specifically from Cohen. In one other bit I want to read you that just came out, they just released the second part of the transcript from the day. And this gets to what you were both saying, Jeffrey, which is the theory of the defense that in a way Trump was being extorted to pay this money. This is an exchange about leverage. Emil Bove, the defense attorney in this case asked Davidson, "That was Ms. Daniels' goal, was it not, to create leverage over president Trump?" Now, Keith Davidson initially says, "No." Then later Emil Bove says, do you recall saying to Mr. Cohen, I wouldn't be the least bit surprised if he comes out and says, as you know what, Stormy Daniels, she wanted this money more than you could ever imagine. I remember hearing her on the phone saying: You effing Keith Davidson, you better settle this goddamn story because if he loses this election, and he is going to lose, if he loses this election, we lose all effing leverage. This case is worth zero." Do you recall saying that to Mr. Cohen? This time Davidson says, "I do." HONIG: Okay. So this is the sleaze factor and it is through the roof in this case. And part of it is atmospheric. They want to just turn off the jury. The defense wants the jury to just think, who knows? This is a bunch of people who lie and threaten each other, pay each other off. But it also goes to an important prong of the defense. If the defense believes this is a shakedown and I'm not talking about the legal elements of extortion, just in the normal use of that phrase, a shakedown, it's over. There's no crime here. The alleged crime is they're trying to do something to get benefit in the campaign and they're intentionally trying to get around campaign finance laws - that - none of that works if this is a shakedown. And I was surprised today by the extent to which the prosecution allowed and the judge allowed this specter of extortion to be injected into the case. Were you investigated, Mr. Davidson, for extortion? Yes, I was. Not charged, but investigated. And boy, every time the defense just says that word extortion over and over, it's ringing a bell, I believe with the jury and I think it's going to be a problem for the prosecution. AIDALA: Do you remember - to your point, do you remember Todd Blanche opened on it in his opening statement and he called her - I believe he either called her - Stormy - an extortionist or referred to extortion. Objection sustained, strike that from the record. So in his opening, when Todd Blanche said, the evidence is going to show Stormy Daniels was extorting you, the judge wouldn't let him use that word, but it turns out it's - that's the direction they're heading. COOPER: But let me ask ... BERMAN: (INAUDIBLE) just read one little bit of that. COOPER: Yes. BERMAN: "In this case, the defense attorney says in 2016, you were pretty well versed in getting right up to the line without committing extortion, right? And then Davidson says, "I don't understand your question." Just getting the word in like you were saying, Elie. HONIG: Right. Yes. COOPER: But, I mean, Jeff, if - even if it is extortion or was an attempt of extortion, if - why would that nullify it as, I mean, if Trump decides to pay it off to avoid that to, to, to meet their demands, couldn't that still be about the election? TOOBIN: Well, I think if he is the victim of a crime, you would not - I don't think the jury would find that he's (INAUDIBLE) ... COOPER: What is the difference between extortion and what David's doing? TOOBIN: Well, but that's the - that I think is the key issue here is that anytime you pay someone not to say X, which is not illegal. I mean, you pay someone or you have a non-compete agreement, you are paying someone so they will not do something. And you can argue that that was extortion. But this, I mean, I can see why the government would respond and say, look, this, this is an extortion. This is Donald Trump paying to make sure a bad story doesn't come out, period. That's ... COLLINS: And Keith Davidson was so parsing his words today with the prosecution when they were wrapping up with him before the cross examination. He wouldn't even call it hush money. He would even go that far the way he was describing this agreement with Stormy Daniels. What I was most struck by was how also they got into just how far the stretched - when Donald Trump was in the White House. [20:25:06] I mean, it was January 2018, Donald Trump was delivering the State of the Union, all of this stuff was percolating out there. The Wall Street Journal was reporting and following up on it and other outlets. And I remember that was the State of the Union where Melania Trump drove separately from Donald Trump because she was irritated by what was becoming public. What we were learning about. Meanwhile, they were furiously racing around Keith Davidson and Michael Cohen to stop her from speaking publicly. TOOBIN: But even that excerpt from the testimony that Berman just read, Stormy Daniels knows this is all about the election. She says when this is over, I don't have any leverage anymore. That suggests to me, everybody involved in this transaction knows that the money is being paid to keep this information away from the voters. PHILLIP: But haven't we been talking about how it's not about whether the money was paid or not, it was about how it was done and the way it was kept from the public, so I guess I'm wondering, I mean, if Donald Trump was the victim of extortion, maybe, but either way, he still concocted a scheme to pay the money in a way that was allegedly illegal. HONIG: And I think that's a helpful reminder, just again, because people sometimes may lose track of what exactly the crime is. The payoff to Stormy Daniels is a two part transaction. First, Michael Cohen took this $130,000 down off his mortgage, paid himself over to Stormy Daniels through Keith Davidson. Then in the weeks and months after that, he was reimbursed for multiples of that 400 something thousand dollars through Donald Trump and The Trump Organization through a series of checks. And the allegation here is that reimbursement using this series of checks was a fraud. They tried to make it look like Donald Trump was paying legal fees, retainers to Michael Cohen to cover up the fact that what was really happening is they were reimbursing him for the 130 that he paid to Stormy Daniels to keep her quiet in connection with the campaign. And I agree, by the way, the evidence that this is related to the campaign is overwhelming. I don't see how any realistic juror could think there was not some substantial campaign relationship ... COLLINS: So Michael Cohen, really quickly, just - he didn't make money off of this. The reason it was higher than what he paid is because of the tax that he was going to take. I think he got 60 grand (INAUDIBLE) ... PHILLIP: He did get (INAUDIBLE), yeah. COLLINS: Sixty - but $60,000 was for actually doing this. It was - that's what he says he was paid for. AIDALA: It was the - yes, he's saying that was part of his legal fee. COLLINS: Yes. AIDALA: But to your point, I think if the defense, in Jeffrey's point, if the defense is successful with that line, like it - we're going to lose all leverage. Leverage of what? Leverage of what? Leverage to extort him. Leverage to get the money from him. We're going to lose all leverage. In other words, why - if he's not running for president of the United States, then he's got no reason to buy this. TOOBIN: Not all - I'm sorry. PHILLIP: Maybe we're about to make the same point. You can say it's leverage for extortion, but it can also be leveraged because she wants to be paid for her ... TOOBIN: Exactly. PHILLIP: I mean, that doesn't have to be ... AIDALA: That's extortion. PHILLIP: No, it's not. TOOBIN: No, it's not. No, it's not. AIDALA: If you don't, if you don't, hold on ... PHILLIP: It is extortion. AIDALA: ... you're running for president of the United States, if you don't give me money, I'm going to tell the world that you're a sleaze bag who sleeps with porn stars. PHILLIP: Here's another scenario ... AIDALA: That's extortion. PHILLIP: If you are - if you're a victim of a - if you're a victim of sexual harassment and you've sued someone and you - there's a limit to the amount of time that you have to do that, right? AIDALA: That's a lawsuit. PHILLIP: Okay, sure. But isn't the idea that - this came up recently, you come up to the edge of that statute of limitations, let's call it. And then you say you want to get some civil money (INAUDIBLE) ... AIDALA: (INAUDIBLE) but you're hiding behind a law suit. PHILLIP: That's not extortion. That's not extortion. AIDALA: Not if there's a lawsuit, but Elie can tell you, if there's not a lawsuit, Michael Avenatti is doing jail time for something very similar, because there was no lawsuit. He went in and said, if you don't give me - I defer. HONIG: Let me speak about extortion for a second, because I charged a lot of extortion cases. No, I did the easy kind, the I'll break your knees kind, juries understand that. But ... TOOBIN: (INAUDIBLE) just to be clear. (CROSSTALK) HONIG: Oh, yes, yes, thank you. Prosecuted, right. (CROSSTALK) HONIG: Then there's this gray area, and Arthur's right, where what if someone's saying I'm going to come out with information that's damaging to you, sometimes that gets prosecuted. Michael Avenatti is in jail because he extorted Nike. He said, I have this information that's going to be damaging to your company, hence you have to pay me. Bill Cosby, before he got in trouble, before that all came out, there was a prosecution of a woman who extorted Bill Cosby. Where that line is - I'll tell you the legal answer, wrongful. What wrongful means is in the eye of the beholder, it's in the eye of the prosecutor, it's in the eye of the jury. It's a gray area. BERMAN: And as a non-lawyer, I can say one of the reasons perhaps that they've had David Pecker and everyone explaining the whole catch and kill scheme, one man's catch and kill is another man's extortion. You have meetings that Donald Trump was part of where they're discussing how to buy these stories or how to keep them from being published. That indicates a certain intentionality that may not be extortion. PHILLIP: And does it matter, Elie, do you think, if Stormy Daniels was telling the truth? HONIG: It does. It goes to the wrongfulness, because it is different in the law's eyes and the jury's eyes. [20:30:02] Imagine she fabricated this. And I said wrongful is the key question here. It's way more wrongful than if it actually happened. COLLINS: But that's also why the prosecution made the point with Keith Davidson. Donald Trump does not part with his money easily and anyone around Donald Trump knows that. He's not just paying someone six figures to keep them quiet. HONIG: Remember they did quiet one guy who had false allegations, the doorman, $30,000. COLLINS: But that was not Donald Trump, that was the -- HONIG: It was AMI, right, AMI. You're right. COOPER: Coming up, we're going to have more new transcripts this time from the gag order hearing and why the defense argues the former president was not attacking the jury when he said the jury was, quote, "95 percent Democrats." More ahead. (COMMERCIAL BREAK) COOPER: More new transcripts, this time detailing an important moment in the gag order hearing about one of the four more recent alleged violations. This was an interview the former president gave Monday last week when he said that the jury was, quote, "95 percent Democrats." Judge Merchan said, "He spoke about the jury, right? Then the defense attorney, Todd Blanche responds, "Pardon me?" And Judge Merchan says, "And he said that the jury was 95 percent Democrats and that the jury had been rushed through and the implication being that this is not a fair jury. [20:35:09] That's the implication that was given to anybody that heard that comment. This is not a fair jury." Moments later, Blanche responded, "Again, he's talking about, again, in a passing phrase about the overall proceedings being unfair and political, the jury." Joining our panel now former federal judge, Nancy Gertner. What do you make Judge Gertner, just in general of how Merchan is handling the gag order drama so far? NANCY GERTNER, FORMER FEDERAL JUDGE: I think he's doing a great job. I mean, he is not being baited. He's sort of, you know, hewing to the language of his order, which has been affirmed, measuring what Trump did by that, and really resisting being baited. The gag order during the course of a trial in one sense is even more important than a gag order before, because you have a juror sitting there knowing that they are the decision makers. So this -- the kinds of threats about witnesses and about the jurors themselves matter more than if it's just diffusely going out into the public. So I think he's doing a great job. COOPER: Regarding Michael Cohen, I mean, is it legally relevant that Michael Cohen had been, at least until recently, going after Trump online? I mean, should the judge amend the gag order so Trump can hit back at Michael Cohen? GERTNER: The judge is not supposed -- COOPER: And Michael Cohen is sort of a public figure. He has a podcast, or, I think. GERTNER: I mean, the judge is not supposed to be concerned about the give and take in the public arena. He's trying to sort of hermetically seal his courtroom. And you know, Michael -- there's no sort of invited response. Michael Cohen can say whatever he wants, although I suspect the prosecutors are probably calling up his lawyer now and saying, would you please shut up, like now. But I -- that shouldn't matter. The judge is only concerned about the people in front of him over whom he has authority, you know, and to make sure that they're not responding. Trump will have an opportunity to trash everyone as he surely will when this trial is over. So I wouldn't worry about his First Amendment rights. JEFFREY TOOBIN, FORMER FEDERAL PROSECUTOR: I think Merchan was somewhat sympathetic to the Michael Cohen issue, because Michael Cohen has been beating the hell out of Trump. And there is, you know, a sense of fairness about the response. But that line about the jury, that's the thing that's worse than anything else -- GERTNER: Right. TOOBIN: -- Trump has said, because that means he has been looking into the jurors backgrounds. That means he has reached conclusions about them. And her honor can -- Your Honor, can correct me, but I think judges are especially concerned about jurors, much more even than witnesses, especially public figures like Michael Cohen. GERTNER: And we've already seen a juror who was, in the jury pool say, you know, I don't want to -- I don't want to deal with this anymore. So, I mean, he could be concerned about that. This is not a jury that has been sequestered, right? We don't really do that anymore. And so, these are threats that could affect the very decision makers in this case, as opposed to the public in general, which are more concerned about, you know, in gag orders before the trial. ARTHUR AIDALA, NEW YORK CRIMINAL DEFENSE ATTORNEY: Judge, they're not threats. There's a big difference between a threat and saying -- and Jeffrey, I don't think you've got to do a lot of research to know that they're majority Democrats -- TOOBIN: Oh, come on. AIDALA: When he got 13 percent of the vote -- ABBY PHILLIP, CNN ANCHOR, INSIDE POLITICS SUNDAY: You know what I will say there -- AIDALA: -- and the Democrat got 87 percent of the vote, I mean, my 17- year-old could kind of figure out -- PHILLIP: I was going to say, though -- AIDALA: -- there's a majority of Democrats. And all he said was it was rushed through, which maybe was a little bit. And he said, I can't get a fair trial with this jury. That's not a threat. GERTNER: He will have lots of opportunity to say it wasn't a fair trial. He doesn't do it during the course -- I'm getting -- I'm becoming a judge in a minute, during the course of my hearing, just saying. HONIG: This is this is my kind of judge. The jury's a third round. You can't talk about the jury at all. I wouldn't talk -- if I could ask the judge while we have you, would there come a point -- could there come a point where if you were reassigned to handle the rest of this case and Donald Trump kept doing this, would you actually lock him up under contempt? GERTNER: That's hard. It's -- I mean, I think, you may reach a point where you'd have to do that just to be able to preserve the legitimacy of the proceedings. But man, that would be right down the line. I think that Merchan did the right thing by threatening it. Here's where we're going to start. We're going to start with money. And every time you're going to be, you know, have to pay money. And I'm going to consider and I detaining you, you know, in the bowels of this courthouse, which can't be very nice, you know, and then after that we'll go somewhere else. But I think any judge would hesitate. HONIG: Why would you be hesitant, though? GERTNER: Because you don't want to -- well, one is a disruption that it will cause, there's no question about it. And the government didn't even seek his detention today. And I think it's one disruption to there'll be appeals up and down the line, and three, it'll martyr him. COLLINS: Judge, can I ask you about something that one of Trump's attorneys, Susan Necheles, who certainly knows the New York court system very well did today, she had this issue, this stack of articles, a lot of comments from legal commentators who are on Fox News, and she basically wanted the judge, she said, to look through them and make sure that Trump could post them without violating the gag order. And the judge said, I'm not going to be in the position of looking at posts in advance and determining that. I mean, one, how unusual is that? And two, I mean are they -- do you think that was effort in good faith or? [20:40:14] GERTNER: That whether the lawyer's effort was in good faith? No. COLLINS: Does she actually want the judge to look through a bunch of random files? GERTNER: No. I can't imagine that you would, and I can't imagine he would indulge that. I mean, I think that that was the right -- that's sort of a classic prior restraint. Here are the things that you -- here are the articles you may not post. Now, the other gag order is already a prior restraint, here are the areas you can't cover. But he doesn't want to get into the nuances of who's saying what. He doesn't want to give Trump a script. He can say, don't do X, Y, and Z. And what Trump is doing is not even remotely subtle, right? He's attacking witnesses and jurors. It's not even subtle. AIDALA: Judge, I know Susan did that in good faith. I know Susan Necheles for a long time. She's a fantastic, ethical lawyer. TOOBIN: She's a great lawyer. AIDALA: I am positive she did that in good faith. And she probably said, Judge, he wants to retweet this particular article. He doesn't want to violate it. It's written by Elie (ph), who is on his side, and he wants to retweet it, can he do that? She did that in good faith. COLLINS: He can just read the gag order. TOOBIN: But that's not a judge's job to -- GERTNER: Right. TOOBIN: like review things in advance. AIDALA: It's his order, of course, it's his job. It's like, what am I, in a twilight zone? It's his order. He could change it any way he wants. TOOBIN: Yes, and he will evaluate if someone violates it. But he's not like there to be the lawyer. AIDALA: You're totally doing -- TOOBIN: He's the judge. AIDALA: I have done it -- I did it yesterday. Judge -- yesterday, judge -- when my -- in federal court that you're not allowed to speak to any of your co-defendants or any of the employees who work for the corporation. Well now he's pled guilty and for his sentencing memo, he wants letters from his former employees saying what a great guy he was. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: That has nothing to do with this. AIDALA: Hi Judge, can we violate your order, which you said he can't talk to the employees. GERTNER: That's different. AIDALA: And can we speak to them? Can you adjust your order? GERTNER: No, no, if Trump had said, can I talk about X? And the judge can say, yes, that fits within my order or doesn't? Can I talk about why that would be different? But to look at an article and say, well, I think that it would violate the order, not that it doesn't -- that's way out of line. That's not his role. He can say -- AIDALA: Asking permission. GERTNER: -- here are the lines that I'm going to draw. And any rational human being would know whether or not they have violated. COOPER: Judge, let me ask you about the pace of the trial. So far, Judge Merchan said earlier this week that appears to be running ahead of schedule. I mean, do you concur with that? Is that -- GERTNER: Well, he said six to eight weeks. The jury selection did take -- was quicker than anyone anticipated, which is actually may ultimately be an issue in the case. But it sounds like from his own model of when -- how long this was going to be, it is moving more -- it is moving more quickly, which goes back to the question about Trump's speech. His day will come. It's not that he will be forever barred from talking about this case, he's only going to be barred while jurors are sitting there. TOOBIN: But if I could just add one point about the gag order, for all of trump's complaints he's been abiding by it You know, he gets up and he says this gag order is outrageous, the judge is unfair, all of which he's permitted to say. But ever since the contempt finding he has not talked about jurors, he has not talked about witnesses So I think actually in the system is working. COLLINS: It's been like three days. TOOBIN: And is not -- and Trump is not prohibited from talking about this trial, he is prohibited about certain -- from certain categories, and he's actually following those rules as far as I can tell. GERTNER: And the issues today concern stuff that predated the gag order. TOOBIN: Right, well that predated the finding of the violation, yes. GERTNER: The finding, yes. Right. HONIG: To the judge's point, this case has -- there's been sorted elements of this case, Trump's conduct outside the courtroom I think has been abhorrent. But the trial itself is running smooth and efficient. I mean, everyone's behaving themselves. The lawyers generally are doing a good job. Judge Merchan, I think, is doing a nice job of keeping this thing on track. And I think that's important because everyone's watching this trial, and it really needs to be fair and efficient and not a circus. And I think to all the party's credit, that's where we're at so far. Not making any promises, but as of today, that's my assessment. GERTNER: It raises a different question, which is that, boy do I wish there were cameras in this courtroom. COOPER: Yes. GERTNER: I was a federal judge and we did not have cameras. I think that was so totally wrong. It would be wonderful to be able to see a dignified proceeding in the midst of a media circus. That would have been a -- COOPER: Yes. Judge Gertner, thank you, everyone. More on the trial coming up -- coming up next after this break, the latest on the protests on some college campuses. These are the scenes from UCLA last night and this morning, smoke bombs and flash bangs used to break up the encampment there. We'll have a live report from that campus and what President Biden said today about the demonstrations across the country next. (COMMERCIAL BREAK) [20:48:46] COOPER: Another day of confrontations on some college campuses, a dozen arrests at Portland State University after police in riot gear cleared out a library occupied by pro-Palestinian, anti-Israel protesters. Inside, they said they found buckets full of ball bearings, tools, paint balloons, and other items. At UCLA, 10 -- 210 people were arrested after a pre-dawn raid, smoke bombs, and flashbangs used by police to clear out the encampment there while police were getting fire extinguishers and other projectiles hurled at them. Police have now arrested more than 2,000 protesters over recent weeks. More now from CNN's Stephanie Elam. (BEGIN VIDEOTAPE) STEPHANIE ELAM, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): Uncertainty at UCLA after police cleared a pro-Palestinian encampment in the wake of a standoff with hundreds of demonstrators Wednesday night. Police breaking down barricades, shooting rubber bullets, launching smoke bombs and flashbangs, and arresting more than 200 protesters. The protest site dismantled after a clash erupted Tuesday night when counter protesters, some of whom were pro-Israel, threw objects at tents, hurled fireworks, and pulled down barriers set up by the pro- Palestinian encampment. UCLA's chancellor calling the attack a quote, "dark chapter in the university's history." In the morning light, only trash, graffiti and discarded tents remained of the encampment. [20:50:11] The campus now swiftly being cleaned up. Nationwide, more than 2,000 people have been arrested on college and university campuses in the last two weeks, including at Dartmouth College in New Hampshire and Portland State University in Oregon. Police officers in riot gear cleared barricades. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: You are now under arrest for trespass. ELAM (voice-over): Pushing out more than two dozen protesters hold up in the college library. But many of the protests in recent weeks have been peaceful, including this one at George Washington University with dueling demonstrators. Some universities like Columbia initially sought to negotiate with protesters, while others called in law enforcement from the start to manage emotional protests focused on a highly charged international crisis. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: But I know objects were being thrown at officers during the night. ELAM (voice-over): The unrest closing campuses and even canceling some graduation ceremonies. UCLA students forced into remote classes for the remainder of this week. Rutgers University postponing or relocating some final exams. The challenge now for college administrators where protests were held and where arrests were made at more than 40 campuses nationwide to move away from confrontation and focus back again on free speech, safety, and education. (END VIDEOTAPE) COOPER: And Stephanie Elam joins us now from UCLA. So, you're learning some new information about what happened leading up to the police taking action last night, I understand. ELAM: That's right, Anderson. We've heard through the chancellor of UCLA put out a statement saying that it was just becoming too much of a focal point of violence having this encampment on campus. And that is why they decided to dismantle it, even though the vast majority of the people were peacefully protesting. And he also noted that there were about 300 protesters that on their own volition decided to go ahead and leave the encampment before the arrest began. You have to keep in mind they were making many loud speaker notices telling people to leave before they started those arrests. Anderson. COOPER: Stephanie Elam, thanks so much. President Biden addressed the unrest on campuses seeking to strike a balance between the right to protest in America and the rule of law. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) JOE BIDEN, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: Vandalism, trespassing, breaking windows, shutting down campuses, forcing the cancellation of classes and graduations, none of this is a peaceful protest. Threatening people, intimidating people, instilling fear in people is not a peaceful protest. It's against the law. (END VIDEO CLIP) COOPER: Joining us now is Senior White House Correspondent Kayla Tausche. So, what more did the president say? KAYLA TAUSCHE, CNN WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: Well, Anderson, the president was trying to outline very clear differences between what he sees as the right to peaceably assemble and issuing a forceful condemnation of anything like anti-Semitism or violence. Here's more of what the president said. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) BIDEN: We are not an authoritarian nation where we silence people or squash dissent, but neither are we a lawless country. We are a civil society. An order must prevail. There's the right to protest, but not the right to cause chaos. (END VIDEO CLIP) TAUSCHE Officials tell me that Biden was motivated in no small part by the imagery that we just saw from UCLA overnight, the repeated involvement of law enforcement on campuses nationwide and what he sensed was mounting pressure in recent weeks to step up and deliver some of these more forceful remarks. I'm told that senior aides were monitoring more official channels of I'm also here with the local governments and law enforcement. But younger staffers here at the White House were also adding some of their firsthand accounts from peers that they know who were on campus and sending some of these social media images and videos to sort of inform the way that the White House was thinking about this. Remember, Anderson, President Biden himself is going to deliver two commencement addresses in just a few weeks time at both Morehouse and West Point. And when I asked the White House what sort of tenor they expected to encounter when he did that, they said they couldn't possibly predict that. COOPER: Do you have a sense from White House officials what their strategy is going forward with these protests? TAUSCHE: Well, the president said today that he does not plan to call up the National Guard as some Republicans have called for. He also said that he's not going to change tack with his strategy in the region. Of course, the White House has been pinning all of its hopes on this deal that's currently being brokered by Secretary of State Antony Blinken in the region this week to usher in a ceasefire to free dozens of hostages. And White House Press Secretary Karine Jean- Pierre, when I asked her earlier this week about how close that is and, and whether that would end the protest, she said, we want the same thing as the protestors. We all want to end the war. Anderson. COOPER: Kayla Tausche, thanks so much. Much more to come on day 10 of Donald Trump's hush money trial, what to expect tomorrow when the judge might rule on what prosecutors say are new violations of the gag order. (COMMERCIAL BREAK) [20:59:46] … The Source with Kaitlan Collins Aired May 02, 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 HOST: 9 PM here, in New York. Day 10 of the Trump hush money trial, ending with a false claim, from the defendant that he's not being allowed to testify. The day began with prosecutors seeking additional contempt judgments against him. But things really heated up, during the testimony of Stormy Daniels and Karen McDougal's former attorney, Keith Davidson. The prosecution played the phone conversation that Michael Cohen secretly recorded, and CNN exclusively obtained, featuring Donald Trump, taking an active role, in the Karen McDougal deal. We're going to be talking about that, and the impression that it may have had on the jury, throughout the program. If you're just joining us, here's that clip. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) MICHAEL COHEN, FORMER TRUMP ATTORNEY: I need to open up a company for the transfer of all of that info regarding our friend David, you know? DONALD TRUMP (R), FORMER U.S. PRESIDENT AND 2024 PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: Yes. COHEN: So that -- I'm going to do that right away. I've actually come up, I've spoken-- TRUMP: Give it to me and-- COHEN: And I've spoken to Allen Weisselberg about how to set the whole thing up with-- TRUMP: So, what are we going to pay for this? 150? COHEN: --funding. Yes. And it's all the stuff. TRUMP: Yes, I was thinking about that COHEN: All the stuff. Because -- here, you never know where that company -- you never know what he's going to be. TRUMP: Maybe he gets hit by a truck COHEN: Correct. So, I'm all over that. And I spoke to Allen about it, when it comes time for the financing which will be-- TRUMP: Listen. What financing? COHEN: We'll have to pay. TRUMP: So I'll pay with cash. COHEN: No, no, no, no, no. I got -- no, no, no. (END VIDEO CLIP) COOPER: Back with the panel. Joining us, CNN's Laura Coates, host of "LAURA COATES LIVE" at 11. Also CNN's Kara Scannell, who was in court again today. What did -- what stood out to you, Kara, from the court today? KARA SCANNELL, CNN CORRESPONDENT: I mean, I think the audio is a big thing. We're hearing Donald Trump's voice. The jury is hearing that for the first time. And hearing a lot of Michael Cohen's conversations, because that was just one of the audio recordings that was played today. The other one that was played was Cohen on the phone with Davidson, recounting a conversation with Donald Trump, in which he was saying that -- he was quoting Trump as saying, I hate the fact that we did it, referring to the Stormy Daniels deal. So, just interesting for the jury to hear this. These are real-time recordings. Of course, Trump's lawyers will push back on what it means, and what he was referring to. But it's just really the jury hearing both Cohen referencing Trump, and Donald Trump who's sitting in the room, but hearing him on this secretly-recorded phone conversation, talking about this specific deal, in the case as Trump's lawyers have tried to push away from it. COOPER: Yes, Laura, how do you think these recordings played? LAURA COATES, CNN HOST, LAURA COATES LIVE, CNN CHIEF LEGAL ANALYST, FORMER FEDERAL PROSECUTOR: Well, they are part of the overall jigsaw puzzle, right? You want to give a little bit for each witness. Now, one witness is not going to give you everything you ever need to prove your case. But you want to get the juror closer and closer to the clear picture. But you also want them thinking to themselves, OK, as shady as it might be, for an attorney to record a conversation with his client, why did you think you had to? What took place before that? And what took place after that? To put in context, exactly why you were doing that? That'll give some additional food for thought for the jurors to understand. Is he doing it to save his skin? Or is he doing it because he believes that this person is somehow trying to be secretive about even his involvement in it, and he's trying to give some evidence down the road? That's part of the overall picture that is becoming increasingly clear. But Michael Cohen is not going to be the most sympathetic figure for these jurors. Nor does he have to be. Nor does David Pecker have to be. Nor does the idea of the catch-and-kill and salacious details. They have to return the jury to the overarching crime, that they are alleging, the falsified business records. A lot of this is about contextualizing it. And the audios, well they don't help necessarily, in terms of showing Cohen as somebody, who should be completely trusted. It doesn't absolve Trump of being -- of him being skeptical about why someone did not trust him. COOPER: When do you think Michael Cohen will be brought to the stand? KAITLAN COLLINS, CNN HOST, THE SOURCE: Even Michael Cohen doesn't know. I mean, it's essentially basically they tell them to be in the area at a certain time. And then -- but you've seen how the prosecution has been laying out the witnesses. They have someone really interesting, like David Pecker come on the first day. And then, they'll bring in the people, who are going to do basically custodial records, because, as you noted, an 8 o'clock -- in the 8 o'clock hour, Trump's team won't stipulate to anything. They won't say yes, our client did say that, at a Trump rally, in 2018, in Michigan. COOPER: So they have to bring in people, to say this, the chain of evidence is. COLLINS: They have to bring in someone today to say yes, this audio is real, it is verified, we've been able to authenticate it. And so, I think that's one thing, when we talk about whether a witness is believable or not, are credible or not. And Michael Cohen obviously is going to get a very tough cross-examination. We know that. The audio tape brings Trump closer to this. And it's irrefutable. It is Trump's voice on there. JEFFREY TOOBIN, FORMER FEDERAL PROSECUTOR: Can we-- COLLINS: It is Trump talking about it. TOOBIN: Can we just talk a little bit about the tape? Because I am sure the jury's going to hear that. COOPER: We got an hour. We can talk a lot. TOOBIN: All right. Well let's start at the beginning, you know. The tape, they are going to hear it multiple, multiple times, and I'm sure parsing every word. But what did Donald Trump say there, when he talks about the money? He says, is the money going to be in cash? Is that something the jury is going to think, wow, what a responsible businessman? COLLINS: Yes. TOOBIN: No, I mean, this, I mean -- I think the jury is going to think, why didn't you say, get out of my office? I mean, Trump is involved in this up to his eyeballs. COOPER: The whole conversation is like a mob tape. COLLINS: Yes. TOOBIN: Exactly. COOPER: I mean, and Michael Cohen certainly has adopt -- or I guess used to adopt that persona. Or it seems like a lot of people in the Trump Organization adopted that persona. But saying like our friend David, you know, I mean, all-- ABBY PHILLIP, CNN HOST, NEWSNIGHT WITH PHILLIP: Yes. COOPER: --you would hear this in-- PHILLIP: Almost speaking in code. [21:05:00] I mean, Jeffrey, you and I were having it probably, the exact same thoughts, at the exact same moment. Because it actually brings me back to the Fani Willis proceedings in Georgia, where Trump's lawyers tried to make a whole thing about how she paid for things in cash. And here is Trump saying $130,000. He was suggesting that they pay-- TOOBIN: Pay her in cash. PHILLIP: They get over a 100 grand in cash. ARTHUR AIDALA, NEW YORK CRIMINAL DEFENSE ATTORNEY: Yes. But one is-- PHILLIP: Who -- I mean, who does that? AIDALA: --one is a sitting elected District Attorney. PHILLIP: Yes. But-- AIDALA: And one is a businessman-- PHILLIP: But Arthur? AIDALA: --who handles cash all the time. PHILLIP: But the jury is sitting there, and they're just going to be like, who does that? AIDALA: Well I don't know. You know what? Let me tell you. PHILLIP: Who says that except someone who doesn't want a paper trail? AIDALA: We have at least we have two lawyers on the panel, we have a financial person on jury -- and we have a finance person. It may not be in the world of business, so, and then not-- TOOBIN: What it's -- it's -- what business is it that you know about-- PHILLIP: A 100. TOOBIN: --where a $100,000 -- $130,000 in cash-- PHILLIP: In cash? TOOBIN: --is routine? PHILLIP: Unless you're doing business in like-- TOOBIN: Yes. PHILLIP: --some part of the world where you may take bribes. COATES: Plead the Fifth, my friend. Plead the Fifth. TOOBIN: Yes, oh, yes. COATES: Don't answer. They're setting you up. (CROSSTALK) TOOBIN: I mean, seriously. COATES: Don't answer that question. AIDALA: There are house closings where that happens. There are different kinds -- there are different kinds of entities. It is not so it's -- it is not organized crime, where we're talking about getting somebody killed. Yes. Michael Cohen has embraced this on the fixer, and the way he talks, and the way he handles himself. COOPER: Right. AIDALA: But if you listen to that tape, ladies and gentlemen of the jury, you know who it proves is guilty? Michael Cohen. What is Trump saying? OK, $130,000, right? But Michael Cohen, whose voice from people who I spoke to, in the courtroom, they said, what came out of the tape today wasn't Trump's voice, who you barely hear. It was Michael Cohen's booming voice in that courtroom. And I think Elie said it earlier, they're dirtying up Michael Cohen, with their own witnesses, to trying to like lay the groundwork. Get ready, ladies and gentlemen, because you're going to hear from a sleazy guy. But Anderson, I've been involved with a lot of trials. I've never had prosecutors, calling their own witnesses, to dirty up their main witness. That is just not normal. COATES: Well they're taking out -- they're trying to take out the sting. First of all, it's not as if this is a figure, who has had his voice altered, throughout the course of the last several years. We don't know his identity. Michael Cohen is a very known figure so much, though, it was a part of the conversation, in terms of even jury selection, anticipating who they may have known, how familiar were they with the case. And so, they are aware of who it is. But you got to be honest. It's not as if most crimes are witnessed by a bus full of nuns. They're witnessed by people, who sometimes are complicit with the actions. AIDALA: Yes. I agree. COATES: But-- AIDALA: And so, everyone's got to agree with what you are saying. COATES: Yes. Well, I mean, well -- well everyone now have to. But I appreciate that you do. But let me also tell you this. We are thinking about what I think that they are trying to do. I think they're trying to make this jury say, and look, this is how things are done. This is how the sausage is made. This is a shakedown. Of course, a very, very wealthy man, who says he's very, very wealthy, they get hit up all the time about people alleging that they've got a story. And boy, do I have a story to tell you? They're not so much, I think, pinning this on the hopes that people suddenly have an epiphany, about their opinion, about a well-known figure, maybe like a Michael Cohen. As much as thinking, well, hold on this is -- this is kind of how things are done, I guess. If you're rich, someone's got a target on your back, financially. That's one of the ways they're going to try to do so. Combine that with the idea of why you're hearing Michael Cohen's voice. They want to suggest that he is a sycophant, who only wanted to please. There was no intimation. There was no suggestion. He took it upon himself. But that's why the prosecution has got to make their case. It was never going to be a cakewalk. But they've got to prove this is not innuendo. They're going to try to present the attaboy that comes after, not the -- is it cash? No, no, no, no, no, no, no, no. And then what happened later? Remember we heard -- just later. COLLINS: Yes. COATES: David Pecker, thank you, from Trump, thank you-- TOOBIN: Right. COATES: --for your help with the situations. He got an invitation to the White House. He even sits in a room with microphone-- (CROSSTALK) AIDALA: Yes. Because -- because basically, the defense are going to say, he was -- I was getting extorted. Stormy Daniels says we're going to lose leverage if he loses -- if he loses the presidency. We need to get my money. I want my money now. SCANNELL: That was actually corrected on cross-examination. COATES: That's it. SCANNELL: --on redirect, by the prosecutors. Davidson mis-testified to that, based on the way that the cross-examination went. On redirect, he said that he wasn't quoting Stormy Daniels. He was quoting her publicist's boyfriend, who was just about to give an interview, saying that he's the one. So, that was something that probably had some impact on the jury. They were initially -- they initially heard this for the first time, as though it was Stormy Daniels saying that. And then on redirect, the prosecution-- COOPER: So, it wasn't Stormy Daniels who said that-- PHILLIP: Yes. COOPER: --that she would lose leverage. It was her-- PHILLIP: And the publicist's boyfriend. COOPER: --publicist's boyfriend. SCANNELL: Boyfriend. COLLINS: Although-- PHILLIP: Also, he published a blog or something of some kind that-- SCANNELL: Right. He-- PHILLIP: Yes. SCANNELL: He had written -- well they were trying to -- Trump's team was trying to suggest that he wrote the blog post in 2011, on the dirty.com blog that initially surfaced this Daniels Trump liaison, and then they never quite got it confirmed that he actually did author it. COOPER: Well just for the record. SCANNELL: But he worked there at the time. COOPER: If you have a publicist, whose boyfriend is writing, for something called the dirty.com? Probably not a good idea. COLLINS: I get it, also-- TOOBIN: Not the best boyfriend. COOPER: Just not a lot of experience? (CROSSTALK) COLLINS: And just following the extortion theory here, tonight, the one thing that was clear, as all this was being negotiated, is that Stormy Daniels had other options. [21:10:00] Other people were interested in this story. And they were trying to keep her from telling it publicly. And I believe she told you this, in her interview, that she just -- she didn't want it to be out there. She knew what people would say, the attacks on her, the names, what would happen. And so, other people could have bought this story. She could have sold it to someone else. TOOBIN: And-- COLLINS: She made that much clear. TOOBIN: And if we could just talk about Michael Cohen. I know you want to make Michael Cohen out to be the worst person ever, and a liar. AIDALA: Hey, you talk to the federal judge that convicted him. TOOBIN: Well-- (CROSSTALK) AIDALA: Talk to the judge that sentenced him. TOOBIN: Well he pleaded guilty. AIDALA: Talk to his buddies up in-- TOOBIN: Exactly. Exactly. AIDALA: Talk to his budding at Otisville-- TOOBIN: Exactly. Terrible. AIDALA: --prison. TOOBIN: Terrible. Terrible. And who was it who hired Michael Cohen, year after year, to work for him? AIDALA: Listen. I have represented guys, who worked with -- assistant to the President of American Express, the assistant to the President of American Express. American Express seems to be a pretty prestigious thing. Does the President know what the -- his direct underlings are doing? In that particular case? Absolutely not. TOOBIN: Well Michael Cohen has -- Donald Trump has no idea what Michael Cohen was doing? AIDALA: There's -- I think Elie knows there's a tape that's going to come out, where Trump says, you handle it. You just deal with this. Because that's what you do, when you're running for president, when you're a billionaire, when you are the president. You delegate. TOOBIN: And so-- AIDALA: And that's the defense here. TOOBIN: And your hypothesis-- AIDALA: Michael Cohen did this. TOOBIN: Your hypothesis is that Michael Cohen was excellent most of the time. But suddenly-- AIDALA: Who said he was? Who? I never said he's excellent. TOOBIN: I know. But you're saying Trump didn't know. AIDALA: You're never going to hear me say that. TOOBIN: You're saying Trump didn't know that he was corrupt and bombed. COOPER: We just played the tape, where I mean, where Trump is-- TOOBIN: Yes. I mean, he's-- AIDALA: No, I've-- COOPER: --intimately involved. AIDALA: He did-- COOPER: And also, David Pecker has already testified. And a photo was shown in court of him walking past the Rose Garden. AIDALA: But Anderson-- COOPER: And we know the conversation was Trump saying how's our girl, Karen, or how's Karen doing? AIDALA: That's fine. That's not illegal. What's illegal is what went in the book. That's the crime. COOPER: No. But you're saying-- AIDALA: It's falsification. COOPER: You're saying Trump is, seemingly unaware? AIDALA: I don't think -- I don't-- COOPER: That's the photo. AIDALA: I don't think-- COOPER: Literally at this moment this photo was taken, according to David Pecker-- AIDALA: I don't think-- COOPER: --Trump is asking him-- AIDALA: Yes. COOPER: --with all the world's problems that he must be, on his shoulders, in the White House. COLLINS: One of the most sacred places. AIDALA: But that's not illegal. COOPER: He's talking to David Pecker. AIDALA: There's nothing illegal about it. COOPER: No, I'm not saying it's illegal. I'm just saying he's-- PHILLIP: That's right. COOPER: --he's in the White House, and he's concerned about Karen McDougal, and is she going to remain quiet. AIDALA: My point is this. I don't think Trump -- I don't-- COOPER: Well that's what they're talking about right there. AIDALA: I think, Anderson Cooper, I think they're going to have a very hard time proving that Donald Trump said in the -- in the logbook, in our office, which we're not presenting to anyone, put it down this way, so it goes that way. He just says, Michael Cohen says-- COOPER: I don't know it's-- AIDALA: --I spoke to Weisselberg, who's also in jail, right now. COOPER: If Donald Trump, the principal was saying, oh, let's pay in cash, or let's pay in cash. AIDALA: Yes, he didn't want the world to know. COOPER: Right. So he probably -- you know what? He very well might like if he's-- PHILLIP: Well-- COOPER: --so concerned about it being paid in cash, maybe he would want to know where it's-- PHILLIP: One of-- COOPER: --written down in the ledger. PHILLIP: One of the other things that Kara just mentioned that, that came into evidence today was Donald Trump's sort of indicating, oh, he didn't really want to pay this money, he was sort of upset about it. I read that to be kind of one of those pieces of evidence that could go either way, either to this idea that he just doesn't like to hand out his money to anyone in general, or that he was upset about paying money, when he felt under pressure to do so. I mean, to me, that seems to also be something that could -- that could actually work in his favor. COATES: What's fascinating too -- was listening to everyone. We are unpacking and parsing each word. And Monday morning, we're quarterbacking. These jurors hear it in real-time. When you clarify it, a point of cross-examination, you have to wonder, are the jurors actually picking up on those nuances? AIDALA: That's a great point. COATES: What are they remembering in these moments? PHILLIP: Right. COATES: Are they thinking to themselves, does the Rose Garden picture resonate in the same way? Did Stormy Daniels boyfriend or whoever was saying it. And remember, they're not just using what they know here, as much as we tell jurors to do so. We'd heard that video, I mean, that audio tape years ago, with Michael Cohen. People may remember having heard that audio tape, and they remember some of the details of this case. And so, I have to wonder what is going to happen in the deliberation rooms? Are they as focused and in looking at the nuance? Or is it to the advantage of the defense to keep them from stipulating, so they have every mundane detail? You remember the C-SPAN executive. PHILLIP: Yes. COATES: You remember the time they get this document in and that document in, because the more they have to add to that kitchen sink? That's a form of delay. PHILLIP: And this could -- this could also be why the prosecution's tactic of sort of painting a very broad picture of what kind of world was Donald Trump in, what kind of person was Donald Trump? Because if you're a juror, you're probably sitting there thinking, who does that, right? TOOBIN: Yes. PHILLIP: Like every time something like that comes up? TOOBIN: Exactly. PHILLIP: They're just thinking, wait a second, who does that? And that is probably at the end of the day, what is going to drive their big picture understanding of what kind of person is Donald Trump? COOPER: Yes. PHILLIP: What kind of business was he engaged in? What -- would he really have parted ways with this kind of money without knowing what it was for? TOOBIN: Arthur -- Arthur has a $130,000 right now. Right now in this-- COLLINS: He gets escorted out of the building. (CROSSTALK) TOOBIN: It is true. COATES: Write it out to Laura Coates. (CROSSTALK) AIDALA: Not going to write. It's cash. COATES: OK. The cash. Give me the cash. COOPER: We're going to take-- COATES: Venmo. [21:15:00] COOPER: We're going to take a break. We'll see who's left after the cash has been handed out. Much more ahead, including some key moments from the trial transcript that we've just gotten, including the defense's efforts to take attention away from Stormy Daniels and Donald Trump's apparent desire to buy her silence, and put the scrutiny instead on Michael Cohen and Keith Davidson, who made the deal happen. We'll be right back. (COMMERCIAL BREAK) COOPER: More new details we've just gotten from the trial transcript. In cross-examination today, the defense tried to suggest that Keith Davidson was an extortionist for selling the silence of his client, Stormy Daniels and Karen McDougal, and they tried to paint Trump fixer, Michael Cohen, as driven by his own ambition, as we've been talking about, not his boss' orders. More now, on what the trial transcript reveals about both. John Berman's back with that. So, Michael Cohen had many alleged complaints in his conversations with Keith Davidson, including about getting compensated. JOHN BERMAN, CNN ANCHOR, CNN NEWS CENTRAL: Yes. So Keith Davidson recounts on the stand a conversation that he says he had with Michael Cohen. This was during the transition. [21:20:00] Davidson's in a department store, in December, I guess, of 2020. And he says, quote, "He said something to the effect of "Jesus Christ. Can you" effing "believe I'm not going to Washington. After everything I've done for that" effing "guy. I can't believe I'm not going to Washington. I've saved that guy's ass so many times you don't even know." Prosecutor says and did. And then Davidson says, and then. And then question is I'm sorry, I didn't mean to interrupt you. Davidson says, "And then he made reference to, he said, you know, I never even got paid... That effing "guy is not even paying me back the $130,000." And they made clear the $130,000 that they're talking about. What did you mean by that last part? I never got paid -- repaid the $130,000, from the -- from the deal with Stormy Daniels. So, again, what you have there is complaining about the money, but also complaining about not going to Washington, not getting appointed to a job somewhere in the Trump administration. COLLINS: I remember that though, because Michael Cohen was devastated. And what Keith Davidson testified to is correct, that he thought he would be Attorney General, or Chief of Staff, or some prominent role in the administration. COOPER: Michael Cohen thought he would be Attorney General? AIDALA: Yes. Wow. TOOBIN: Yes. COLLINS: I mean, OK. COOPER: Wow. COLLINS: But lest we forget that that December period after-- COOPER: I mean, you know what? Entirely possible. COLLINS: After Trump-- COOPER: I mean, I don't know why. COLLINS: After Trump won the election, I mean, the figures that were going in and out of Trump Tower. COOPER: Right. COLLINS: That people that he wanted to see. Remember, Michael Cohen is someone, who wanted to always elevate himself in Trump's eyes. He had a lunch with Mark Cuban, and he had them sent paparazzi there, so Trump would see him having lunch with Mark Cuban. And so, he was always someone, who thought that Trump would be loyal back to him. And I think that's really also the tail of what we're seeing here, which is we only know this, because Michael Cohen said a lot of this publicly, even though people discredit him, I understand that. But Michael Cohen came forward and flipped on Trump, even though Trump was once confident. And it's something it's a known quantity now, the breakdown in their relationship. But for people who knew them, I mean, Michael Cohen is someone, who is completely loyal to Donald Trump, and did not get that loyalty back in return. PHILLIP: But of course, he must have known that that was a possibility, because he taped that call. COLLINS: Yes. COOPER: Yes. PHILLIP: I mean, he taped the call for a reason, probably to substantiate that the agreement had been made, but also to ensure that it was on the record that he had put this money down for Donald Trump. So, the idea that Michael Cohen, from the beginning, kind of questioned whether Trump would be good for his side of the deal, the money and all of it, I think, was always there. He always kind of suspected that Trump would kind of-- COLLINS: And Michael Cohen didn't even tell him wife-- PHILLIP: --want to back out of it. COLLINS: --about this. PHILLIP: Yes. COLLINS: So, I mean, he's calling Keith Davidson. I'm not sure many other people knew that Michael Cohen actually had done this, at that time. COOPER: Yes. COLLINS: Rudy Giuliani obviously later knew, because he said it on Fox News. But Michael Cohen's wife didn't even know that this had occurred. PHILLIP: Yes. COATES: And that works two ways. Remember we heard this testimony from the banker, to suggest that he had a certain amount of money in the bank. And then, he wanted to match that because his wife, Michael Cohen's wife, looked at all the finances, and he was trying to be very secretive about all these different aspects of it. Now, if you're the defense, how are you going to use that? You're going to say, this man has lied to every branch of government, and his wife. But you wanted to believe him right now? But if you are the prosecution, think about you're working backwards. You're thinking about your closing argument, how to sum up all the things that have happened here. And one thing you want to sum up is the use of the word that Berman just read, repaid. Not, I thought, if I did this, he might do this. He hasn't even repaid me. And you combine the word repaid, with the audio tape that's been recorded, to suggest that there has been some meeting of the minds, between Donald Trump and Michael Cohen, about an event that would take place, and then he did not make good on his promise. And remember, when is he saying this? Can you believe I'm not going to go to the White House with him? He's won an election. The damage has been at least not done, but it has been contained. And so you add it all. AIDALA: But that's not the crime. COATES: No. The crime is the falsified business record. AIDALA: The payment is not the crime. In other words-- COATES: I hear you. AIDALA: --they could prove all day long that he paid $130,000 in cash, in check, in credit card. That's not the crime. And Anderson, OK, we had some fun with the cash part. But think about it. If you're paying for a confidentiality agreement, you know? That's the legal term. That hush money is, it's media. But the legal term is a confidentiality agreement. Typically, you don't want a big -- you don't want a big track record of what -- here's a check for $130,000, to Stormy Daniels, floating around the universe, like really why? COOPER: Yes. (CROSSTALK) COATES: Well it's like that's why-- AIDALA: Why is there a 100-- COATES: But that's why-- AIDALA: Why is there a $130,000 check, why? COATES: But listen, that's why you don't want Michael Cohen-- (CROSSTALK) TOOBIN: It sounds right. COATES: That's why you -- that's why his attorney should not have had him talking in front of the courthouse at one point in time. Remember this last week, Donald Trump comes out, and tries to -- tries to create and frame the conversation to suggest, all I've done, right, all I've done, is I wrote on a memo line for legal services. I paid an attorney for legal services. By the way, that could possibly come back to haunt him. Why? Because of what I've just said. If the agreement was made, and now the mission accomplished is that I have won the election, and the purpose of having to repay you is now about what I've written in the business records? I no longer have the same level of exposure. So, they have to crack that all together. [21:25:00] You're right. In isolation, in a vacuum, you cannot just sort of pick and choose and say, aha, this one sentence. But the cumulative aspect for this prosecution, point by point, is what they're going towards for that falsified business record. And again, they're trying to hide an underlying crime. TOOBIN: And remember, this is, what the prosecution is going to hope to do is say this is mostly a documents case. COATES: Right. TOOBIN: Is that the checks exist, the checks to Stormy Daniels exist, and the checks to pay Michael Cohen back exist. The business records exist, where the payments are characterized as legal fees. The only issue in the case, ultimately, as you keep pointing out, is Donald -- did Donald Trump know that these false indications are on the business record. COOPER: But-- AIDALA: And the second part. COATES: Yes. AIDALA: And they're being used to commit another crime. COATES: Yes. AIDALA: In other words, they can't just -- it can't just be that it's on the books. That's statute of limitations down. That's a misdemeanor. That's gone. It's got to be yes, Donald Trump knew it was on the books, and then knew it was in furtherance of another crime. TOOBIN: Correct. AIDALA: It's a two pieces of the puzzle. TOOBIN: And that -- and -- but that's the easy part because that other crime is campaign. Everybody had known. AIDALA: Which one? Hold on. Which one? State or federal. TOOBIN: We haven't -- it could be both. It doesn't matter. AIDALA: Oh. TOOBIN: It doesn't matter. The point is-- COOPER: Does it matter that the record, the business records, I mean, isn't the defense arguing these are personal records that these are not business records submitted to the IRS? These are internal Trump company-- TOOBIN: It's still a crime. It's still a crime. It still -- it doesn't have to be-- AIDALA: But to your point, he's not-- TOOBIN: It doesn't have to be submitted to be like an IRS tax return. AIDALA: No. But to Anderson's point, he's not charged with filing a false insurance. That is another crime. COOPER: Yes. AIDALA: He is not charged with that. It's falsifying business records, which as you correctly pointing out-- COOPER: Yes. AIDALA: --it's an internal document. Not that he gave it to the Federal Election Committee or the IRS or anyone else. TOOBIN: There are hundreds of crimes that he's not charged with. But he actually is charged with the one that is a crime. AIDALA: No. But Anderson's making a valid point. In other words, it's not that he -- someone fill this out and submitted and said, this is the truth. It was in a desk, in someone's desk, in a ledger, in an office. TOOBIN: But the State of New York has decided that it is a crime-- AIDALA: And just to be clear-- TOOBIN: --to have a falsification. AIDALA: --it's a misdemeanor, that at this point is barred by the statute of limitations, and it only comes to life, if they could prove-- BERMAN: Yes. AIDALA: --that it was in furtherance of another crime. COATES: And look-- AIDALA: And the only thing I what to say about the tape, about Michael Cohen, one of the first questions I'm -- well, one of the first areas of cross-examination is how many other times have you recorded Donald Trump? Because I'll bet the $130,000 I got in my pocket, that that's not the only time-- PHILLIP: Yes. AIDALA: --he recorded Donald Trump. PHILLIP: You know, that's actually a really good question about how many other times he's done this to a degree. Because to me, if you're the prosecution, what you want -- what you want to indicate is that Michael Cohen knew that what he was doing, first of all, was shady. He wanted it on tape, that he was doing it for Trump, with Trump's knowledge. And the election looms large over that. And if they can substantiate that the reason-- COOPER: Yes. PHILLIP: --he was worried about getting this on tape, maybe this will come out when Michael Cohen takes the stand, is because the stakes here, are-- AIDALA: But what if he says I recorded all my conversations? PHILLIP: --Donald Trump is a presidential candidate-- AIDALA: What if he says I recorded all my conversations with Donald Trump? PHILLIP: Maybe. I'm just -- I'm saying it's a valid question. COLLINS: But is that wrong? I mean, is it effectively-- AIDALA: Well it's wrong, from an attorney-client point of view. COLLINS: It's effectively -- but and maybe it's not great. PHILLIP: But I think it's a valid question that I think Michael Cohen will have to -- he'll have to explain why in that particular moment, it was important to tape it. COOPER: He was recording it. PHILLIP: And it seems to me, the presidential election is not irrelevant, in that conversation. BERMAN: Can I say one-- COOPER: Yes-- BERMAN: --one other thing is that -- is that you talk about this being a documents case. And it may be, and it may be very dry. But there are a lot of moments, when the prosecution is getting stuff in there that's not dry at all. And this, in the Control Room, just this is what graphic number three is, for the 9 o'clock hour here. It has to do with the relationship that Stormy Daniels had with Donald Trump, or allegedly, right? And they get this into evidence here, today. Steinglass, the prosecutor asks, so let me direct you to two parts in particular. This is of a statement that Stormy Daniels and Keith Davidson crafted. The first two sentences, when it states that she, Ms. Daniels was contacted by certain news outlets alleging she had a sexual and/or romantic affair with Donald Trump, many, many years ago and then it states that that's absolutely false. How is that technically correct? The prosecutor asks. Davidson responds, well, I think you have to hone in on the definition of romantic, sexual and affair. The prosecutor says, OK. Can you explain that? Davidson says, well, I don't think that anyone had ever alleged that any interaction between she and Mr. Trump was romantic. And then Steinglass says OK. How about sexual? And then Davidson responds, well, that would be a sexual and/or romantic. So yes, this may be a documents case. But there has to be a reason the prosecution is doing everything they can, to show there is some pretty seedy behavior. [21:30:00] COOPER: There was also something in the transcripts, I understand, about Keith Davidson, and his surprise on Election Night that Donald Trump had won. What did he say that night in his assessment? BERMAN: There's a text message exchange between Keith Davidson and Dylan Howard, who of course worked for David Pecker. And just to read quickly through this. This is the first exchange in a text. Davidson says, yes. What did you say? Davidson says, what have we done? Steinglass, the prosecutor, says, what did you mean by that, Mr. Davidson? Davidson says, well, that was sort of a gallows humor. And it was on Election Night as the results were coming in, and there was a sort of surprise amongst the broadcaster and others that Donald Trump was leading in the polls and there was a growing sense that folks were about to be ready to call the election. The prosecutor says, and you referred to it as "Gallows humor." Can you explain that a little more? What did you mean? Why did you say, "What have we done?" Davidson says, I think there was an understanding that this is a text between Dylan Howard and I, and there was an understanding that our efforts may have in some way -- I should strike that. That our activities may have in some way assisted the presidential campaign of Donald Trump. TOOBIN: Well that-- COOPER: Jeffrey, is that important? TOOBIN: Well, I mean, part of the charges in this case, is that all of these transactions, all of this money was ultimately to benefit Donald Trump's campaign. And what they are saying is, my God, it worked. COOPER: Yes. TOOBIN: And that's part of the case. COOPER: John Berman, thanks very much for the transcripts. Coming up, the former President used his free weekday this week to campaign in Wisconsin, and revive an old threat. How that could tie in to this trial. His former White House Communications Director joins us next. [21:35:00] (COMMERCIAL BREAK) COOPER: Well at the end of every court day, the former President makes no secret of his feelings about the judge, the prosecution, and the system of criminal justice he finds himself at odds with. And on a recent day-off he expressed a similarly dark view of the electoral process, if things don't go his way, by his lights. The former President was campaigning Wednesday, his off-day in Wisconsin, just outside of Milwaukee. He also gave an interview, to the local newspaper, the Journal Sentinel. And for the third presidential campaign in a row, he began laying groundwork, for not accepting the results of this November's election. He said this of the upcoming Wisconsin vote. Quote, "If everything's honest, I'd gladly accept the results. If it's not, you have to fight for the right of the country," which raises the question, of course, what happens if this trial doesn't turn out in his favor? Joining our panel, former Communications Director in the Trump White House, Alyssa Farah Griffin. I don't think it surprises you that he would say this a third time about this upcoming election, but remarkable to see him just boldly saying that. ALYSSA FARAH GRIFFIN, FORMER TRUMP WH COMMUNICATIONS DIRECTOR, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: Well, and what's also remarkable is this trial, which is incredibly important is happening, but in some ways it kind of superseded this incredible time interview that Donald Trump gave, in his own words, which is laying out verbatim, what aides like myself have warned for the last four years. That, a second term would be mass deportations, detention camps for undocumented migrants in the country, weaponizing the Department of Justice, going after political adversaries, and just really paint this picture of a fundamentally un-American second term. He's also openly talking about contesting election results before even having them. I worry that in this moment that we're in, these very scary things aren't getting quite the attention that they can. We're living in such a fast-paced media environment. I don't necessarily see the Biden campaign doing enough, to really raise the stakes here, and say this is how dangerous this moment is. It's, yes, he will absolutely contest the results of the election. Did it once before. COOPER: Also, he's raised the bar so high for, based on everything he's always said that at a certain point, it just becomes like noise like oh, yes, of course, he would say this, and people don't even pay attention. COLLINS: Well-- FARAH GRIFFIN: People do tune it out. Yes. COLLINS: And I'll never forget, when Trump was asked it in the briefing room that day, and he equivocated, and wouldn't say whether or not he would accept the results of the election. It was in the middle of COVID. That's what everyone was primarily asking questions about. And that was the first time he had said it, in such a public forum. I know he had said it in 2016. And he had referenced it before. But this is Donald Trump. This is what he does. He did this in the Town Hall, a year ago. He said I'll accept the results of the next election, if it's an honest election. The person who decides that in Trump's mind is Donald Trump. PHILLIP: Well and-- TOOBIN: Can I just point out that what he said in that interview is almost word-for-word, what he said on The Ellipse, on January 6th. PHILLIP: Right. TOOBIN: You have to fight, and about an election result you don't like. And they fought at the Capitol on January 6th. He's saying the same thing. PHILLIP: Yes. TOOBIN: And expecting presumably the same result. PHILLIP: Yes. I mean-- COATES: It's similar to also the court -- what he's saying in court, right? He will -- his -- his acceptance is always contingent on a result being favorable, right? It's only going to be a fair system, or a fair trial, or a fair jury, if it results in what he believes to be, and should be an acquittal. COOPER: Let's play what he said after court today. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) TRUMP: Well, I'm not allowed to testify. I'm under a gag order. I guess, right? I can't even testify at all. No, we're going to be appealing the gag order. But I'm not allowed to testify, because this judge, who's totally conflicted, has me under an unconstitutional gag order. Nobody's ever had that before. (END VIDEO CLIP) COOPER: Obviously, that is false. I mean, Todd Blanche's reaction is kind of amazing. PHILLIP: It was somewhere between a nod and a no? COOPER: And it was sort of like a nod and then like a no, and then a yes, and-- PHILLIP: Yes. AIDALA: My heart breaks for him, for Todd, because I've been in those positions, where you have a client larger than life. But not in this league. Not -- I was going to say-- TOOBIN: Former President of the United States? AIDALA: All right. I just said-- TOOBIN: OK. All right. AIDALA: --not in that league. Yes, but OK. Mr. Weinstein had a lot to say. Mr. Herschel (ph) has a lot to say. Rudy Giuliani has a lot to say. Alan Dershowitz has a lot to say. Anthony Weiner has a lot to say. Roger Ailes had a lot to say. So, yes, I've had some clients-- COOPER: By the way of all the-- AIDALA: --who had a lot to say. PHILLIP: You've had some clients (ph). COOPER: Of all those suffering in the world, I think your heart could break for some other attorney? AIDALA: Yes, for Todd. Well no but all I'm saying was-- COOPER: I mean. AIDALA: --with Todd in that position. COOPER: He seems to have made his choices and. AIDALA: Yes. I agree with you. But when you have a guy like that, saying something, that's ridiculous on two levels. COOPER: Yes. AIDALA: There's never been a gag order like that before? That's ridiculous. That's not true. COOPER: Yes. [21:40:00] AIDALA: And I can't testify because of the gag order? That's elementary knowledge. I mean, my high school son knows that you are allowed to testify. That's not true. So, you sit there like a schmuck kind of, as you're like oh, OK, Mr. President. But I mean, for those words to come out of his mouth are ridiculous. PHILLIP: I think the other thing just to merge the two storylines, here, Trump fundamentally, is always trying to sort of break down the institutions. Any system, any procedure, any process that is unfavorable to him is fundamentally unfair, in his view. That goes for elections. That goes for this court in Manhattan. That goes for the court in Georgia. It goes for the court in Florida, where he's being tried in the documents case. So knowing that, when it comes to the elections, which is -- which is really the whole ballgame, what does the country do, when he's basically saying what he's -- what his game plan is going forward? And when you ask Republicans, as I'm sure all of us will, over the next six months, what are you going to do different this time around, compared to the last time around, when he laid the predicate for January 6th? If the answer is we're going to do the same thing we did last time, which is basically say that this is Donald Trump's rhetoric, and it doesn't matter? That I think tells us everything we need to know about what's going to happen, going forward. It has not seemed to me like Establishment Republicans or whoever else in the Republican Party, who are the ones, who ultimately will kind of have to make their choices here, their behavior is not really changing. COOPER: Yes. PHILLIP: And so, it suggests that Donald Trump is just going to kind of play the same playbook. And it might have the same result, except that this time around, people are more ready for it. COOPER: Well, I mean, Kaitlan spoke to Senator J.D. Vance, last night. And Alyssa, I want to play this for you, because she asked him if Trump's treatment of Mike Pence on January 6th, gave him any pause. This is what he said. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) SEN. J.D. VANCE (R-OH): Kaitlan, I'm extremely skeptical that Mike Pence's life was ever in danger. I think politics -- in politics, people like to really exaggerate things, from time to time. I know a lot of folks, in the Democratic Party-- COLLINS: I think Mike Pence would disagree with that, Senator. VANCE: A lot of folks, in the Democratic Party, Kaitlan, act as if January the 6th was the scariest moment of their lives. I think, look, January 6th was a bad day. It was a riot. But the idea that Donald Trump endangered anyone's lives, when he told them to protest peacefully, it's just absurd. (END VIDEO CLIP) COOPER: I mean, obviously-- FARAH GRIFFIN: It's stunning. COOPER: --rioters were chanting hang Mike Pence. FARAH GRIFFIN: It's just stunning. I mean, yes, rioters chanting hang Mike Pence, gallows being erected on the South Lawn. I know Mike Pence's security detail. I've traveled the world with them. They do not mess around. I've spoken to them after January 6th. They feared for his life. And Mike Pence chose not to stay, even though he was at risk. They relocated him. It is just a rewriting of history. J.D. Vance knows that it's not true. And by the way, as somebody who's been on the receiving end of death threats from MAGA-world, it should not be stunning to anyone that people would threaten somebody, for going against Donald Trump. COLLINS: Well also there's videos of other Republican senators, who were there that day, running from the rioters, as they were breaking in. And I thought what's so interesting, and this is important for people who don't know, is J.D. Vance is on Donald Trump's VP shortlist. He is someone who could be in the role that Mike Pence was, on that day. He's made clear he would not do what Mike Pence did, and stand in the way of sending the fake slates of electors to Congress. He believes Congress should fight that out, essentially defying the Constitution. And I just think it speaks to the moment of what he's in. And the question was, does it give you any pause how Trump has treated Mike Pence, a lifelong conservative, and didn't even call Mike Pence that day, when he was up there? And Mike Pence has said that Donald Trump put his life in danger, also his family who was with him. So he's made that clear. But it does speak to Abby's point about who is going to be around Donald Trump, if he is -- if he is going to be potentially put back in the White House. And it could be people, who say they won't stand in the way (ph). FARAH GRIFFIN: But by the way-- COATES: For perspective there's-- PHILLIP: Blocks the networks (ph) seems at this point. COATES: Put some perspective, by the way, as for you're talking about it, there's the Supreme Court right now, that is deliberating as to whether he would have immunity, absolute immunity. So, we talk about who would surround a future president, or somebody who might return to the Oval Office? If a president has absolute immunity, it doesn't matter who's to his left, or who's to his right, or anyone, because no one above him. That's the whole point. Here. The law would even be below him. And that's part of what the consideration is going forward. Remember, they're not asking for conditional, the way he talks about conditional. They're asking for absolute immunity, and all that's being contemplated, the nine justices have to consider it. COOPER: Yes. Stay with us. Coming up, who will testify next? Still a lot of big names to hear from, including someone once considered to be one of the former President's most trusted aides in the White House. That's ahead. [21:45:00] (COMMERCIAL BREAK) COOPER: Anticipation is building for who we may hear from, in tomorrow's hearing, and whether it'll be any of the high profile witnesses to come, including possibly former White House counselor, Hope Hicks, someone once considered one of the former President's closest confidantes, and most trusted aides. Back here with the team in New York. When -- who's on the stand tomorrow? Who starts off tomorrow? Do we know? COLLINS: They haven't said for sure. They don't announce this, obviously publicly. But what they've been doing is folding in the super, interesting juicy witnesses with those who bring the records. I think it could be more of the records people, potentially. But I do think after that there is an open question of who fits next in this narrative. Hope Hicks has been a widely speculated-about choice. We don't know that it is going to be her. But in that audio tape that they played in the courtroom today, it does, I believe you can hear her voice in the background. She was obviously around, for those key conversations with Michael Cohen. So, she could be a natural fit potentially. COOPER: Alyssa, how are Hope Hicks and Kellyanne Conway seen in sort of the Trump-world today? FARAH GRIFFIN: So two very different figures. Hope, I started with her both stints I did in the White House. She had one focus. She's not ideological. She's not particularly partisan. Her role in the White House was to protect Donald Trump, at all costs. She sees herself as a Trump loyalist, first and foremost. [21:50:00] I'm a little surprised that there's been some kind of media scuttlebutt that perhaps she's really going to turn on him, and this is going to be a big moment, where she reveals what he did wrong. I think she's going to tell the truth, as instructed by her attorneys. But I think she will stay very well within the lines of anything she will -- she won't want to say anything that's incriminating to the former President. And Kellyanne Conway, I mean, she still clings to the inner circle. She's, from a certain perspective, advising the campaign, right now. I don't know that either are a slam-dunk for the prosecution in any sense. COATES: Yes. I mean, in many ways, think about why you'd want her. Remember, they cannot play the Access Hollywood tape. They are not allowed to. It's too prejudicial, according to the judge. They can't reference the fallout from the Access Hollywood tape. For framing purposes, as the prosecution, you want to make the connection that the reason why he was motivated, to try to falsify a business record, or even pay this person differently than he had, say, Karen McDougal, was because they were concerned about the impact to the campaign, from the fallout of the Access Hollywood tape. So, if you've got emails, if you've got discussions, if you've got communications with Hope Hicks, as the connecting dot, between the campaign and the fallout of Access Hollywood, to where we are now, that's when they're most useful. And she need not frankly, even be somebody to turn on Trump, or to me -- or to turn against him. She has to be somebody to say, well, look, it was contemplated. The fallout was major. We thought that there was a chance that if there was one more straw that fell on perhaps the evangelical voter back, or the women voters back, or just the electoral voters, in general, and that could have been the end of the campaign. That's the concern you have to convey. TOOBIN: I think one of the most interesting questions about the prosecution is this point, is do they call Karen McDougal? And even do they call Stormy Daniels? Because-- AIDALA: That's a great -- that's a great point. TOOBIN: No but-- COOPER: Do they -- do you think they need to? TOOBIN: You know-- AIDALA: Right. That's a great point TOOBIN: --as a technical legal matter? I don't-- PHILLIP: Yes. TOOBIN: --I don't think so. AIDALA: Right. TOOBIN: I mean, the checks have been introduced. PHILLIP: Right. TOOBIN: The purpose behind the checks have been introduced. And so, they don't have to prove that the sex took place. That's not part of the case. And they may think that -- the prosecutors may think this is too much of a spectacle-- AIDALA: Well particularly-- TOOBIN: --too much of a sideshow. And so, I don't know. AIDALA: Well-- TOOBIN: I mean, I think Stormy Daniels is likely because it is her transaction that is really in the heart of this case. But Karen McDougal, it's essentially background information. The prosecution has -- has already put forward all about the transaction. I don't know if they need her. AIDALA: So, before I get to that point, when you talk about tomorrow, it's all about strategy, right? And when you're a defense attorney, you're exhausted. You're literally exhausted. And if you put on a -- the prosecution puts on a key witness tomorrow, on Friday, the defense has Saturday and Sunday to see, OK, this is the direct, they're going to have daily copy. And they could really prepare very well for the cross-examination on Monday. So, when I was a prosecutor, I tried to put on like, nonsensical, no- big-deal witnesses. But I think-- TOOBIN: You mean on a Friday. AIDALA: On a Friday, so that I don't give the advantage to the defense attorney to have that weekend to prep. What Jeffrey is saying, though, is, and I've been thinking about that, do they really need Stormy Daniels? But if you give the defense, the opportunity to go up there and say, I am, as the defense attorney, I am telling you, my client has always said he didn't have sex with Stormy Daniels, and this was a shakedown. These were absolutely false allegations. And this was, he just paid this money, just to -- yes, even if it was for the presidential election that it changes. Now he really is a victim of extortion. COOPER: Yes. AIDALA: So, I think they're going to have to bring her in. And she's going to say, yes, we had sex. Where, when, how, how many times. COOPER: As a defense attorney, you wouldn't -- and you were representing Trump, you would not want Stormy Daniels and Karen McDougal to testify? AIDALA: Correct. COATES: But you know what? You don't have to. PHILLIP: I-- COATES: I mean, remember there like one of the objections that came during the opening, which we all know, opening statement objections are pretty rare. You want to kind of have everyone have their flow. One comment that instantly got sustained by the judge was alluding that Stormy was an extortionist, right? So, that's something that the judge is going to have on a very tight leash, number one. Number two, it really doesn't matter if they actually were engaged in a sexual affair, or anything. PHILLIP: Right. COATES: Any more than it matters whether at that time, and he's got (ph) with Billy Bush, he really did grab them by the P. All that matters is the fallout-- COOPER: But-- COATES: --and the idea of whether it would impact how he was perceived enough to motivate him to make a payment and falsify the records. COOPER: Well let me ask you, just in terms of the impressions to the jury, if they hear that Donald Trump has denied even knowing Karen McDougal, or denied, and you already have testimony from David Pecker saying he would ask about Karen McDougal, repeatedly calling her, our girl, and Karen saying, she's a nice girl. [21:55:00] Does it help to actually have them on the stand, to tell their side of the story, and the jury then if they believe those two, then they are less likely to believe Donald Trump? Because-- COATES: Well yes. COOPER: --if he's lying about that. COATES: I mean, yes, but it also, as a strategic reason, even though I know conceptually I don't need to have this to check off the boxes to maybe move -- make my elements. I've got a jury, who's leaning in to the most -- I want them in the palm of my hand, to be leaning in to know, on these moments, what you're hearing is so important, number one. Number two, it's going to look bad for the prosecution. You mean there's all this talk about Michael Cohen, and Stormy Daniels, and I don't call them? A juror's going to think to themselves well, hold on, why are we not hearing from them? FARAH GRIFFIN: Yes. COATES: And you have to kind of play to that same level. TOOBIN: That's it that's-- PHILLIP: And also-- TOOBIN: That's a risk for the prosecution if they don't call them. (CROSSTALK) AIDALA: Going crazy as a defense attorney, in my summation. Where are they? Where's the beef? COATES: I -- right. AIDALA: Where are they? Is getting me-- PHILLIP: I also want to just underscore just the differences between Karen McDougal and Stormy Daniels, I think, come into play here. Karen McDougal's relationship with Trump is much more of a relationship, right? COOPER: Yes. PHILLIP: Stormy Daniels, there's a debate about whether-- COOPER: Karen McDougal said she was in love with him. PHILLIP: Yes, exactly. FARAH GRIFFIN: Yes. PHILLIP: So, I think that that -- that also is going to come into play too, in terms of Trump's credibility-- COOPER: Yes. PHILLIP: --in denying these affairs. COOPER: Want to thank everybody. The news continues, so does our special primetime CNN trial coverage, right after a short break. (COMMERCIAL BREAK) CNN NewsNight with Abby Phillip Aired May 02, 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: Sex, lies, and that audio tape, Donald Trump's hush money trial, has taken a detour into the seedy underbelly of Hollywood. The lawyer who played the go-between between the Trump led-effort to buy Stormy Daniels' silence gave the jury some critical facts about the pain process to get this deal done. Now, that lawyer also got a dose of hardball from Trump's lawyers. Now, did it poison his credibility with the jury? Well, we'll find out. I'm Abby Phillip and you're watching a special edition of NEWSNIGHT. LAURA COATES, CNN ANCHOR: And I'm Laura Coates, and today's day inside court, I mean, it was filled with unsavory stories, to say the least. I mean, the sex, and there was plenty of that. And not just the rumored tryst between the former president or a porn star or a Playmate, the defense put Keith Davidson's life on display for the story and his noir-like character arc, apparently, as the guy who makes things go away for the rich and the very famous. The lies, now there were plenty of those from the former president, including, well, this one. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) DONALD TRUMP (R), FORMER U.S. PRESIDENT, 2024 PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: Well, I'm not allowed to testify. I'm under a gag order. I guess, I can't even testify on that. I'm not allowed to testify because this judge, who's totally conflicted, has been under an unconstitutional gag order. Nobody has ever had that before. And we don't like it, and it's not fair. (END VIDEO CLIP) PHILLIP: Again, that is a lie. And maybe most importantly, there was the audiotape today, the surreptitiously recorded conversation between then-candidate Donald Trump and his then-fixer Michael Cohen, about that cash deal that Trump wanted to use to bury those stories about these alleged encounters. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) MICHAEL COHEN, FORMER TRUMP LAWYER: I need to open up a company for the transfer of all of that info regarding our friend, David, so that -- I'm going to do that right away. And I spoke Allen when it comes time for the financing, which will be -- TRUMP: Listen, what financing? COHEN: We'll have to pay. So -- no, no, no, no, no. I got it. No, no, no. (END VIDEO CLIP) PHILLIP: We'll be hearing and hearing about that audio tape a lot. Here with us in studio is Robert Ray, Ana Navarro, Joey Jackson, Jennifer Rogers, and Donte Mills. So much to unpack there, but let's start with the audio tape. Actually, Robert, I'm curious about your take on this. I mean, that tape really gets at the heart of this, which is Trump's voice, the jury hearing it really for the first time. But also Trump weighing in on this deal, talking about how it should be done to a degree, and acknowledging that he understood what was being done on his path. ROBERT RAY, REPRESENTED TRUMP DURING FIRST IMPEACHMENT TRIAL: Yes, I suppose so, except that that's not really what the charge is. The charge is whether or not he had the intent to conceal as part of advantaging a campaign or to commit a campaign finance violation. So, you know, yes, they have him on tape. The question is, is that indicative of intent -- PHILLIP: Intent to conceal? RAY: Yes. Well, it's around -- PHILLIP: He says he wants to do it in cash. Most people would agree that would be something someone would do if they don't want a paper trail. RAY: It's around the edges, but it doesn't really get to the heart of it, which is the question of which is what makes it a felony, the issue about whether or not it was done or intended to benefit a campaign. And that the prosecution doesn't have. What they hope to have is enough other surrounding atmospherics where it would be reasonable. They're going to argue in summation for the jury to infer that Donald Trump had that requisite intent. So, there's a lot of atmospherics that happened today and I concede the public interest in the salacious and the unseemly and the Hollywood and the sort of, quote/unquote, extortion that goes on to do catch and kill and all the rest of this that's going on, and I guess we're in Day 10 of this, but the question is what's its impact ultimately on -- PHILLIP: All right. Robert just threw out a bunch of bombs there. I know you -- RAY: On the ultimate question, which is whether or not he has criminal intent. JOEY JACKSON, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: So, let me give you the counterpoint to that. So, I'm a defense guy but I'll be a prosecutor person just to respond to that. This is critical information. What's critical? Critical with respect to Donald Trump's knowledge in that conversation between Cohen and Donald Trump. Why is that? Here's why. Number one, now granted they were talking about the Karen McDougal deal, correct? [22:05:02] The Karen McDougal deal was not -- that was the Playboy, right? Excuse me, Playmate. But what it does is it gives Trump some knowledge with respect to what Cohen is doing. It gives Trump some knowledge with regard to what his fixer is up to. It gives Trump some knowledge with respect to deals like this being made. So, what you can do is argue, and you know this, Laura, you can argue to the jury reasonable inferences. So, Trump knew about the Stormy -- excuse me, he knew about the Karen McDougal deal. He spoke with you with regard to how it would be financed. You had every conversation with him about that, but he knew nothing about Stormy Daniels. He had no knowledge as to what was going on there. That's just not a reasonable inference. So, yes, you can argue that it's on the periphery, et cetera, but I think it goes directly to a very core issue with respect to what he was doing and whether Michael Cohen was just out there acting on his own or whether he had, right, knowledge, and he was acting at the behest of Trump, and that's significant. COATES: And, of course, none of this is in a vacuum, right? We know that it's not television. Remember what the judge said at the very beginning, right? This is not going to be like a Law and Order or a Perry Mason episode. They're going to have to build upon each of their witnesses. And not one is going to give them everything. But you look at this, Jennifer, and think, when you're putting the jigsaw pieces together, trying to have a clear picture, they're looking to build on this. This witness said this. This witness said that. The inferences are not just coming from one person, but from the jury's recollection. JENNIFER RODGERS, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: Yes, I mean, listen, they started with David Packer, who had a meeting with Donald Trump and Michael Cohen, all three of them together, talking about during this campaign, you can be our eyes and ears and you're going to figure out if there are problems for us and help solve those problems. I mean, that's where we started. Then we had a few Perry Mason moments, talking about made for television, with the cross of Keith Davidson and the jury kind of sits up and says, well, wait a minute, maybe the defense is scoring some points. And then prosecutors come back and say, well, wait a minute, we have a tape and we're going to leave you with the last thing that brings us back to Donald Trump. The weakness of Davidson, of course, was that everything he did was with Cohen kind of leading into this defensive, it wasn't Donald Trump, it was Michael Cohen. And then prosecutors come back and say, no, no, no, we have Donald Trump. Don't worry. We're getting there piece by piece, as you say, Laura. DONTE MILLS, NATIONAL TRIAL ATTORNEY, MILLS AND EDWARDS LLP: Well, the thing is, when you talk about proving this case, you do have to show intent for you. You have to establish that he knew that this was going on. And that's what that phone call does. He knew that payments were being made. But you also have to establish intent. And I don't know if that's there yet. And if you look at the defense of what they've been doing cross- examination, they're making it clear that everybody is doing this, right? This is something that high-profile people, celebrities, they're paying people off, and not necessarily because of elections, because these people weren't running for office. They're doing it to save their reputation. Why can't Donald Trump do it to save his reputation generally, to protect the interest of his family, right? And if that's the case, if the jury believes he was just doing what all other celebrities were doing, then it doesn't meet that felony level of trying to impact an election. And that's where they have to get. ANA NAVARRO, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: The part that I think is different though is, okay, so we may not have established Donald Trump's intent, but they've pretty much established everybody else around his' intent, his very close circle, right? Whether it's Pecker, Cohen, Davidson, they're all talking about the campaign. They're all talking about what it means. They're all talking about the timing. They're all seedy characters. They've also, I think, established that, but they're the characters that Donald Trump chose to surround himself with. And they certainly knew what they were doing and why they were doing it. PHILLIP: And to that point, Joey, I know you have a bit of the transcript that goes exactly to that, which is all the folks around them, as Ana, was just saying they were like, oh, oh, wait, hold on, this worked. JACKSON: They really were. So, let's give you a sense of some of the transcript. NAVARRO: Please, like if you were auditioning for Perry Mason. JACKSON: My read in court today, question, answer. All right, so here it is. Here's the question. What did you mean when you say, what have we done? Answer, I think that there was an understanding that this is a text between Dylan Howard and I, right? He's the content guy from National Enquirer. And that there was an understanding that our efforts may have, in some way -- I should strike that, that our activities may have in some way assisted the presidential campaign of Donald Trump. Question, and how did Dylan Howard respond to your text? Answer, oh my God. There you have it. MILLS: If I can just push back a little bit, what does his impression of why Donald Trump did it matter? It comes down to why Trump did it, not why anyone else surrounding it did it. So, on the other side, those payments were made, right? Whether Stormy Daniels knew those payments were made for a specific reason or not, McDougal knew for a specific reason or not, Davidson knew for a specific reason or not, it comes down to why Trump did it. I think that side puts that. [22:10:01] JACKSON: The answer is that jurors, we always say, when we're parading in front of them, you use your common sense and good judgment, to Ana Navarro's point, right? Everyone around you knows what's going on. RODGERS: The co-conspirators. JACKSON: Everyone around you, the co-conspirators. Remember the theory of the prosecution. This is about a conspiracy and a cover-up. A conspiracy indicates that there are those around you who are conspiring with you collectively to break the law. The cover-up is in the payment. And so, right, no, there's never going to be, I won't say never because sometimes people are really guilty and it shows. But there's sometimes it's not a smoking gun. Sometimes you have to rely upon jurors to bring their everyday experience into a courtroom with them. And if everyone knows, the butcher knows, the baker knows, the candlestick-maker must know too, that's the Donald Trump in this. So, your point is a good one. COATES: Hold up. I appreciate the nursery rhyme, but let me hold on a second. I'm going to give this one a second. I'm not going to hear dramatic reading. But what if a juror heard it differently and heard instead of what have we done, we may have assisted as if you didn't intend to in the first place. The fact that he's saying what have we done, I could see one juror perhaps thinking to themselves, wait a second, did we just do what we think we did, as opposed to what should have been mission accomplished? That's one risk of this that could actually happen. RAY: It falls into the so what category and it also falls into the category of, look, this guy, Keith Davidson, quite clearly testified that his agenda among other things included using the leverage of the election in order to extract the payment. That's a very odd way of saying or being able to conclude that the purpose of all this was to influence a campaign. I think the cross-examination was subtle but pretty effective when you think about it to suggest that, look, what's going on here in this unseemly world is a lot of shenanigans by people who have an agenda, the 40 percent slice of the action that this attorney makes with regard to a recovery. And what they were angling and aiming to do in this environment, even though there was a campaign going on, had anything but to do with the campaign but had everything to do with using somebody who is a candidate in order to figure out how to obtain an objective for a client. PHILLIP: I do want to make just one -- RAY: To obtain an objective for a client that was financial, where the attorney stood to make an enormous slice of that. JACKSON: Attorneys are always. That's the purpose, right? You're representing my client. PHILLIP: I want to just make two -- RAY: So, that's a different agenda. PHILLIP: I want to make two factual notes here. So, Keith Davidson says he was paid $10,000, which is not an enormous sum of money. But, secondly, on redirect, the thing about the leverage was actually corrected. He said he misspoke. It was not attributed to him or to Stormy Daniels, but to the boyfriend of the publicist. It's a sort of tale. But the point is it wasn't coming from them. It was not from someone who was actually totally tangential to the situation. RAY: But it doesn't change with the motivation. PHILLIP: I do. I mean, it changes where that motivation came from, which I think if you're in the jury, that would matter. I do want to go to Katelyn Polantz, because she has some more about Keith Davidson as well. KATELYN POLANTZ, CNN SENIOR CRIME AND JUSTICE REPORTER: Yes, Laura and Abby. Let's look at Keith Davidson on the cross-examination, where the defense team is questioning him, not just about these situations where he's talking to Michael Cohen and Donald Trump, but they're also trying to distance him and discredit him from all of what's going on there. And the way that Emil Bove did that, Donald Trump's defense counsel, in this cross-examination is he tried to make the point to the jury that Keith Davidson, over many years, like a decade, worked for a lot of different celebrities or worked in the realm of different celebrities, representing people who had stories about them that could be negative to silence them. So, those people include Charlie Sheen, Hulk Hogan, Manny Pacquiao, Lindsay Lohan, Tila Tequila, she was out there in the mix as well. And what was happening in those situations, as far back as ten years ago, one of the clearest examples is with Charlie Sheen, where there were women that Keith Davidson was representing that had stories about Charlie Sheen, and then those stories were somehow buried. What Emile Bove, the defense lawyer, was trying to say in his cross- examination of Keith Davidson is he kept asking him about extortion or extraction, about how his memory might have been fuzzy around all of these clients he was representing in a way to put him in a negative place for the jury as they're thinking about this man, this attorney representing Stormy Daniels. Here's a bit of that back and forth related to one of the clients that Keith Davidson represented around Charlie Sheen. [22:15:01] So, Emil Bove asked him, you know who Charlie Sheen is, right? Keith Davidson, I do. And you've represented some clients who you helped get paid by Charlie Sheen, right? I've represented several clients who had claims against Charlie Sheen. And who you extracted sums of money from Charlie Sheen on behalf of, correct? There was no extraction. You took steps to cause Mr. Sheen to pay, correct? We asserted that there was tortious activity committed and valid settlements that were executed. So, some of this that Emil Bove is doing here in the courtroom before the jury, it's subtle and it's suggestive to the jurors, but it is something that he may try and argue later on, that the defense team might try and argue later on whenever they have all of this evidence into the record. There's another really brief exchange just so you can see how there's wordplay going on here between the defense counsel and Keith Davidson about what he was doing and what kind of a person he was. Bove asked him, I remember, I'm asking what you remember. All right, can you answer? Davidson, in answer to what? Bove, I'm not asking you to assume anything. I'm just asking for truthful answers, okay? Davidson, you're getting truthful answers, sir. Exchanges like that happened several times over the course of today. That's subtlety and suggestion coming across in the cross that the defense team had for Keith Davidson. PHILLIP: A lot in there and certainly what you might expect if you have a lawyer on the witness stand. COATES: No straight answers ever, ever, period. PHILLIP: Katelyn Polantz, thank you for that. Up next for us, the judge is clearly losing his patience with Donald Trump as he decides whether Trump violated a gag order once again. Plus, the former president's defends his behavior and his attentiveness in court with a compliment to himself. This is CNN special live coverage. (COMMERCIAL BREAK) [22:20:00] COATES: Tonight, the judge in Donald Trump's criminal trial appears to be losing patience with the defendant, and for that matter, his own lawyers, over Trump's inability to stay quiet. The judge is right now deciding whether Trump violated his gag order on additional four different occasions, just days, remember, after fighting Trump in contempt and warning him of jail time as a possibility. Our panel is back. Joey, read us that exchange today, because the judge didn't seem to be mincing his words. JACKSON: The judge was not. So, this is about, as you note, the gag order. So, here it reads official transcript from court. But he's running for president. This is, of course, Trump's attorney. He has to be able to speak. So, Your Honor is right. He can walk out there and he could go right, that's where that door is, or he can walk out there and go left, that's where the press is, and make a statement, which he's entitled to do and has to do, Your Honor. So, we are not, the court interrupts him, Laura, and saying what? That's why he is being allowed to do that. That's why that entire area has been set up the way that it is set up to ensure that your client, as a candidate for presidency, has the opportunity to speak about absolutely anything he wants, including the district attorney of New York. But there are just some things he cannot talk about. And that, of course, goes to the specifics of the gag order, right? He could attack Alvin Bragg all he wants to his heart content. He can talk about Biden. He can talk about the judge, which he does regularly, by the way, but you just can't talk about the witnesses. You can't talk about the jurors. You can't talk about families, you know? So, the judge is just saying, I have to make balanced limits with respect to what your client can do, and that's the exchange. COATES: Well, part of what he's saying too is, you know, look, I'm just I'm calling David Pecker nice. That's what I've done. I said he was nice. What's the problem with that? Why can't I say that? Why can't I make this statement? And the prosecution -- PHILLIP: You've got to say with a mobster accent? COATES: Oh, yes. I called him nice. I called him nice. It's a nice house you got there. Oh, too much? Okay, fine. I'm in New York today. But we think about the saying calling him nice. They're saying no, no, no, no. That's code. He's trying to suggest, stay nice, keep being nice, otherwise there's a problem. And then also the idea of calling the jurors Democrats, he's taking issue with that. What's the problem with calling them Democrats? I'm just saying they're overwhelmingly Democrats and then I had a quick jury This is also kind of a they're afraid of a intimidation dog whistle. NAVARRO: Yes. Is there a question here? They're afraid of an intimidation dog whistle. There is no doubt that they're worried about witness tampering, juror intimidation, all of these things. And if Donald Trump is good at something -- well, he's good at a few things. But one of the things he's very good at is dog whistles and blowing them in a very effective way. COATES: In politics, but this is a gag order. MILLS: I will say this. Donald Trump is phenomenal at controlling the narrative. He knows how to trigger people and get them going. Take, for example, what he said today about not being able to testify. He didn't use that by mistake. He knows he's not going to testify. There's your answer right there. Is Donald Trump going to testify? No, because he already said, the judge told me I can't. So, when he doesn't, and if this goes south, he has that to fall back on because his people will believe him when he says he was instructed not to testify. He doesn't do those things by accident. So, those words like, oh, he's a nice guy, right? He's telling him, all right, we're still good. We're still good right now. Stay -- keep doing what you're doing. You know, stay low. Don't fire him any shots, and we're still good. He's using those words on purpose. The prosecution is calling it out, but the judge has a very tough line to walk because you cannot restrict speech, and he doesn't want to do that. [22:25:04] PHILLIP: I am a skeptic of this gag order. I've questioned whether it makes any sense to even be deliberating over it. However, I've been convinced, after talking to a lot of you smart attorneys, that maybe it's working, because Donald Trump has not actually, it seems, violated the gag order since he's been punished technically. So, is it too early to say that, you know, mission accomplished by Judge Merchan that this actually has kind of worked for whatever reason? NAVARRO: Oh, yes, yes, yes. It is way too early with Donald Trump. PHILLIP: I am skeptical -- COATES: (INAUDIBLE) whether he should have a gag order or whether he would follow the gag order. PHILLIP: Both, that if a gag order cannot be effectively enforced, if it doesn't have an enforcement mechanism, that matters to the defendant. $9,000 does not matter to Donald Trump. And if you take jail off the table, it doesn't matter. So, why have one and why spend all the court's time on it? But he hasn't violated it yet. RODGERS: So far, it's working. He has slowed down. And remember, these four statements were made before he came out with his ruling on the first batch of nine. So, he really hasn't violated in a long time and jail is still on the table. Now, will he pull that trigger? Probably not. RAY: His lawyers are making sure he's paying attention to drawing the line. COATES: I mean, he's been saying that there are two systems of justice. He's been using that to his advantage, and that's the narrative he's crafting. And I do believe we have a legal system in search of a justice system, but he's trying to suggest that he alone is being singled out for political persecution. So, if a judge were to say, you know what, he's not going to follow it anyway. So, I guess you, of all defendants, you're the one that doesn't have to have a gag order, you can make comments about the jurors, you can make comments about -- you're not going to follow it anyway. That would, in fact, put him above the law and say, unlike any other defendant, can you imagine having a client who, Your Honor, he's not going to follow it anyway. So, you know what -- NAVARRO: He's now just substituted what he's complaining about, right? So now, instead of complaining about the judge and the jury, he's complaining about the gag order. It's all about, what am I the victim of today? What's my victimization -- RAY: Take Trump out of this for a second. Hold on. Because it's the right thing to do. Political speech is at the top of the totem pole under the First Amendment. You have a an active presidential candidate running for president, okay? He's on trial I get that. One of the problems of a gag order is when you start getting involved in content. You know, it's one thing to shut everybody down and say nobody talks about this case, it's another thing where, you know, Trump has to deal as a presidential candidate with Michael Cohen who feels free to basically, as a potential witness in this case, who apparently will testify obviously, is free to comment all he wants and Donald Trump is being gagged from having comment with regard to a critical witness in the case while he's a presidential candidate. This is a difficult situation to be in, I understand, for everybody, for the prosecution, for the defense, for Donald Trump as a presidential candidate, and for the judge. I think it's pretty apparent from what Jennifer said, and I think you're right, that he is paying attention to the line which is the threat of imprisonment, and that message has gotten through. So far, it should be stated the prosecution has not asked for imprisonment under a citation for contempt. They have simply asked for the penalty of fines. COATES: But they'd always point to something different. JACKSON: Could we get back to something that's very critical? Number one, you mentioned Michael Cohen can say anything. He agreed to stop, he has stopped, okay? So, let's clarify that. The second thing is, yes, there's a campaign, yes, there's a political speech, but there are also people who are endangered. There are also consequences to when you have a bully pulpit and you have followers like that, there are real consequences. You remember what happened to the speaker's husband, right, by some deranged person who went in and he inflicted serious damage with a hammer? These are real. A gag order is not, okay, we just want to suppress the person running for president. It's about the consequences of your actions. You can't yell fire in a theater, why? Because your right to free speech ends where it impairs someone else's right. You can't just defame people, why? Because you can impair reputations. You can damage people's ability to support their families. And here, if you're running for president of the United States and you have 70 million people who believe every word you say, whether or not it's true, when you speak to an issue of a witness, that witness can be harmed. You speak about a juror, that juror is in danger. You speak about a family member, something can happen. They're deranged people. So, we can talk about free speech, all we want and presidential speech and political speech. Let's talk about people's safety and let's remember that our First Amendment has exceptions, and that's one of them. RAY: Look, I'm all for protecting jurors and I think the integrity of the process needs to be protected, but you can't design a gag order that's going to protect about against what 70 million people might do. [22:30:04] JACKSON: He's not. The proof of that is he's very limited. He's very limited to the family of the judge. RAY: You've got to be careful. And I think the judge up to this point has been careful. NAVARRO: Well, he was complaining about the jury political speech. He did carve out. COATES: Do you see that as political speech? RAY: Absolutely. Anything he has to say. He's a candidate for president. NAVARRO: Do you think anything he says is political speech? JACKSON: So he could talk about witnesses no matter whether the witness is a danger. RAY: I didn't say he could say anything. Political speech doesn't mean it's not without any constraints. But, you know, the notion that you think you're going to step in and start modulating and having a judge modulate and regulate the content of his speech. I mean, that gets into some serious prior restraint questions that I think his lawyers are right to point out. And I understand the judge has gotten fed up with it. And that's too bad, you know, in my opinion. I think Donald Trump is going to do his level best under advice of counsel to follow the spirit of this up to the line that doesn't allow or force the judge into the showdown poker, which is to put him in jail. MILLS: But if we go back and look, that was a juror who asked to be off the panel because they felt like they were in danger because of all of everything going on around them in the press. So if Donald Trump can go and talk about jurors, if he can talk about the judge's family, the courts, the court staff, you're putting people in danger. And I think the judge is being very careful not to make it too expansive because you don't want to restrict speech. It's very important. It's the First Amendment. Right. But we can't we can't put people in danger, especially when they have the choice or the decision of deciding this case. And you want them to do that when they feel safe. COATES: Well, we have a lot more to talk about in this very issue, Abby, and we see the importance. Just to remember factually, though, the judge did allow in the last actual order, not only nine out of 10 were found to be things in violation of the gag order. One was in reaction. He said it wasn't clear that it was not reaction to a political attack. And so he is contemplating these very ideas of what's going to happen and going forward. Everyone, stick around. We've got a lot more here. Up next, one of Trump's comments on the campaign trail is raising some serious alarm. Once again, he says he may not accept the election results. And if he loses, there might be violence. Stay with us. (COMMERCIAL BREAK) [22:35:00] (COMMERCIAL BREAK) ABBY PHILLIP, CNN ANCHOR: Between Donald Trump's trial and his campaign stunts, it's easy to overlook one of the most serious comments that he has made in recent days. And it has echoes of 2020. COATES: Donald Trump suggests that he will not accept the election results, once again, throwing baseless doubts on the democratic process and, quote, "if everything is honest, I'll gladly accept the results. I don't change on that. If it's not, you have to fight for the right of the country". And by fight, it comes the same way that he will not rule out violence around the election if he loses, quote. "If we don't win, you know, it depends. It always depends on the fairness of an election". PHILLIP: Now it's eerily similar to the refrain that we've heard from him before. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) DONALD TRUMP, U.S. PRESIDENT: We fight. We fight like hell. And if you don't fight like hell, you're not going to have a country anymore. (END VIDEO CLIP) PHILLIP: Now just moments after those comments were made, his followers stormed the Capitol to try to stop the certification of the 2020 election. Robert Ray and Ana Navarro are back with us, along with CNN political analysts Coleman Hughes and Natasha Alford. Trump's words are always the subject of debate, whether they matter or not. I think there's no question, though, that after he did this, a version of this in 2020, something did happen. There was an insurrection on the Capitol. And so this time around, is it really responsible to just treat them as words, Coleman? COLEMAN HUGHES, CNN POLITICAL ANALYST: I don't think it was responsible last time. In fact, during 2020, when he was debating President Biden and whoever was in charge of that debate, asking the questions, will you commit? The exact same question. Will you commit if you lose? And he said the exact same thing. He said, I don't know. I'll have to see if it's fair. And I remember right at that time, I tweeted, anyone who cares about the peaceful transfer of elections should consider what he just said a deal breaker. Now, many people at the time would have responded to me, OK, well, look, Trump only does a third of what he says he'll do, which is true. And so they might have said, he doesn't really mean it. There's no way that you can say that this time. We know what he means by that is heads I win, tails you lose. It will be fair if he wins. And if he loses, it won't be fair to him and his supporters. COATES: Yeah, Natasha, there are those who might be looking at this and saying, well, one, you take him too literally, right? We remember that resonating again. But also, there has not been the insurrection or a seditious conspiracy charges against him when it comes from a federal case. And so they might say, well, if there was not a criminal connection made, then why should you assume that violence would take place at his hands again? NATASHA ALFORD, CNN POLITICAL ANALYST: I mean, I think that response is just too technical, right? Trump leaves things open for a reason. I think it's very intentional. This whole idea of fighting for your country, it's a rhetoric that allows people to decide for themselves what that means. So is it violence? Is it intimidation at the polls? Is it running for office? We now see that over 170 election deniers are actually in Congress, right? So it's sort of choose your own adventure in terms of what it means to fight for your country. But it's not playing fair. It's not playing by the rules of what democracy is supposed to be. [22:40:01] PHILLIP: Let me add a little bit more meat to the bones on the violence piece. This is from the "Time" magazine interview that he had this week. He says, he's asked by the author, are you worried about political violence in connection with this November's election? Trump says, no, I don't think you'll have political violence. The question, you don't expect anything? Trump says, I think we're going to have a big victory and I think there will be no violence. If we win, there won't be no, there won't be any violence. NAVARRO: And you know, this is, I was thinking today, I actually think this trial is helping Donald Trump because, but for the fact that we are doing dramatic readings and trying to decipher what's going on through court sketches, we would have led with that Time magazine interview, which has so many things that should alarm Americans who believe in democracy. And instead we're doing that. So I actually think the trial in a way is helping Donald Trump because it's diverting our attention from the horrible threats, threatening, scary, dictator-like, authoritarian things he is saying and things like that "Time" magazine. It's also keeping him off the campaign trail where he says a lot of stupid, horrible things every time he's out there. So yeah, I mean, look, I'm going to take, as long as there are people like the El Paso shooter who take him literally, as long as there are people like the January 6th insurrectionist who take him literally, I'm going to take him seriously. COATES: Speaking of January 6th, I don't know if you guys saw the interview last night that Kaitlan Collins had with Senator J.D. Vance, who apparently is still on a short list, but essentially of a V.P. candidate in the VP stakes for Trump. But there was this one when he was beginning to, even with Trump off the campaign trail, minimizing what happened on January 6th, even questioning the validity of the fear of Mike Pence. Listen to this. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) SEN. J.D. VANCE (R-OH): Kaitlan, I'm extremely skeptical that Mike Pence's life was ever in danger. I think in politics, people like to really exaggerate things from time to time. I know a lot of folks in the Democratic Party-- KAITLAN COLLINS, CNN ANCHOR, THE SOURCE: I think Mike Pence would disagree with that, Senator. VANCE: A lot of folks in the Democratic Party, Kaitlan, act as if January the 6th was the scariest moment of their lives. I think, look, January 6th was a bad day. It was a riot. But the idea that Donald Trump endangered anyone's lives when he told them to protest peacefully, it's just absurd. (END VIDEO CLIP) COATES: I mean, many would argue, look at that. I remember seeing the footage of members of the Senate running for their lives, being told to take off any of their pins or identifying insignias of any kind so that if they were attacked inside of the Capitol Rotunda, otherwise they would be harmed. But this sort of rewriting of it, this history, I mean, what is your reaction to this, Robert, when you hear this, the minimizing of what happened on January 6th, even questioning whether there was even true fear for his own life of the vice president? RAY: What I've said since the moment it happened is that I did not think that the then-president's conduct with regard to the three hours that was the delay in telling his supporters, you know, cease and desist and go home, was a huge error in judgment. I have never believed that that error in judgment was sufficient to warrant prosecution. And so we can have a long debate about whether or not it was incitement to insurrection and all this other stuff and whether, you know, Mike Pence's life was in danger and so on and so forth. Look, we ought to be about, I mean, look, we've got one trial where apparently we're going to re-litigate the 2016 election. Now you want to talk about this one where we're litigating the 2020 election. And we're supposed to be focusing on the election that we currently have, which is the 2024 election. I think what Donald Trump was saying to answer your original question is I don't really find that the accuracy of results and the integrity of elections is all that big of a deal if the electorate is clear about who the winner should be. We only get into these, you know, difficult situations because the election is so close and a few thousand votes in a couple of states actually make a difference on who the winner is going to be. I mean, I think what Donald Trump is communicating is I'm running for president. I intend to win. And if I win, it's going to be a large enough margin of victory that you're not going to have any of this nonsense about violence or question the integrity of voters or anything else. It's going to be a clear enough mandate where the country has spoken. PHILLIP: He lost by a bigger margin to Joe Biden than he won over Hillary Clinton. So the idea that it's so close that you can't decipher it, he was the one who created that myth in the first place. COATES: We're also closer to the election because of the delay, litigation-wise, to push it closer and closer. But let me ask you a next point, though. I think you were getting ready to say, I mean, part of the concern here is, is it all in the rearview mirror? I mean, talking about re-litigating aspects of it, isn't it relevant to know what the behavior of a president might be if he were to reclaim the Oval Office? [22:45:04] ALFORD: There's a direct line between the past and the present, right? When you say fight like hell for your country and you think about what he's saying now, these are, I think, pretty clear directions to people that anything goes, that if I don't win, that means that something went wrong. And I think this is the power of a lie. You say it over and over again. You sow doubt in people's minds, where even those who thought that January 6th was abhorrent as it was maybe start to question whether there might be something to what the rioters did, right? It's about the repetition of the lie to increase that. NAVARRO: And the reason we are re-litigating it is because the candidate is Donald Trump again. If the Republican candidate was Nikki Haley or was any other candidate, this question would not arise. But we are re-litigating it because the guy whose words led to an insurrection on January 6th is running again. And so we already know what his words are capable of ensuing. RAY: And you have ensured that he is the candidate by attempting to A, take him off the ballot in Colorado and other places, but for the intervention of the United States Supreme Court. And you have ensured and elbowed every other Republican potential candidate out of the way as a result of four indictments in an election season against the leading presidential candidate. And as the result of that, yeah, we're going to re-litigate this because the country is going to make a decision about whether -- NAVARRO: I haven't ensured anything. Listen, the Republican -- Donald Trump owns the Republican base whether I like it or not. RAY: But we're really re-litigating it also in part because a good chunk of the country, apparently now close to more than 50 percent of the country, thinks it was a bad idea to elect Joe Biden in the first place. That's why we're re-litigating it. So there's, you know, everybody takes a message. NAVARRO: If Joe Biden were running against anybody else, this would not be a question. It's a question not because of Joe Biden. It's a question because of Donald Trump, a man who did it once and is going to do it again. PHILLIP: All right, everybody. RAY: Did what once? NAVARRO: Said things that led to an insurrection. Told the proud boys, stand by. PHILLIP: We got to leave it there, everyone. Stick around for us. Much more ahead. But tonight in Charlotte, President Biden visited the families of the four law enforcement officers who lost their lives in a deadly ambush. They were killed while attempting to serve a warrant at a home. It is the nation's deadliest attack on law enforcement in eight years. COATES: And one of the fallen is Alden Elliott, a Marine, an officer, a husband and a father. And today the city honored him with a procession, a man who left his home for work like any other day, but this time never returned. Alden leaves behind a young son. And we want to take a moment to share with you the obituary that he wrote about his dad, something a child should never have to write. PHILLIP: Theo, who is 12 years old, writes, my daddy is a hero. He died getting the bad guys. That's what he was good at. He's a Marine. He's a police officer. He is kind and patient. He keeps my mom and I safe. He is my daddy, the best daddy. We love playing video games together. He really likes Mario, Zelda and Metroid Return of Samus. We collect Pokemon cards. I have a Charizard that he helped me get graded. COATES: He and I have watched every Star Wars movie and series. My daddy loves playing and watching baseball. His favorite team is the Dodgers. He is an expert marksman, perfect score every time. For my 12th birthday, he bought me a dirt bike. He bought himself one too so that we could ride together. I will learn how to ride it and we will ride together one day, daddy. He was the best man I will ever know. And I hope to be just like him. (COMMERCIAL BREAK) [22:50:00] (COMMERCIAL BREAK) COATES: Is Donald Trump's V.P. search turning into an episode, well, of "The Apprentice"? Well, this weekend, he and the RNC are hosting a fundraiser before bigwig donors and trotting out specific names to headline. Some of the contenders include J.D. Vance, Doug Berga, Marco Rubio, Tim Scott, and others. Our panel is back with us now. I mean, let me ask you guys, Coleman, when you think about this, who are you thinking might be the one to have the odds ever in his or her favor? COLEMAN: Yes, I mean, if I were the decision maker, I think you can make a strong case for Marco Rubio. You saw how between 2016 and 2020, Trump had a huge rise in support with the Hispanic community. And it would make sense for him to try to double down and triple down on that trend, which could have a really material effect in some key states. And Marco Rubio might be the guy to help him do that. NAVARRO: I don't see it that way. And I'll tell you why. First, I think Marco is so much more eloquent than Trump. And I'm not sure that Trump will ever fully trust him. Right. But also, Marco Rubio is Cuban-American. The Hispanic vote is not monolithic. We're not one homogeneous group. And I frankly don't think Marco and what he stands for and him being Cuban-American, will it help in Florida? Yes. But that's Trump country already. That's very much red right now. Will it help in other states? Will it help in Arizona? Will it help in Nevada? I don't think it'll help us much. I don't think Marco Rubio carries the punch with the pan-Hispanic community that he does in Florida with the Cuban-Americans that are already in the bag for Trump. [22:55:07] COATES: How about Governor Kristi Noem? Her book -- PHILLIP: I was going to say, she's not exactly on the short list anymore. I didn't see her on there. COATES: It might be a list, but her not on it at this point in time. Why is she off all of a sudden? ALFORD: I think it's a little awkward, right? You don't want someone who's putting you unnecessarily backwards. And it feels like such an unnecessary story to tell. Like, why would you ruin your chances when you know how important this moment is by telling this awkward story? But I do think, you know, I agree with this idea. He doesn't want to be upstaged, right? You saw what he told Vivek. Don't speak more than a minute if I introduce you. He wants somebody who's going to be loyal, almost like a puppy. And I think, you know, Tim Scott -- NAVARRO: No, don't do a puppy right now. ALFORD: Well, that was on purpose. But Tim Scott, you know, the sort of excitement, the sort of, I love Donald Trump, that's just kind of, it's a sort of a blanket approach to loving Donald Trump. I think it's that simple. And I think that there are some Black voters who are open to being persuaded, not the majority. And Tim Scott might be able to do that. PHILLIP: All right, everyone. Thanks for being with us this hour. Robert, Anna, Natasha, Coleman, thank you all. And stand by, our coverage continues next. (COMMERCIAL BREAK) Laura Coates Live Aired May 02, 2024 - 23:00 ET THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED. [23:00:00] (COMMERCIAL BREAK) (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) DONALD TRUMP, FORMER PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: We had a long day in court as always, but very happy about the way things are going. (END VIDEO CLIP) LAURA COATES, CNN HOST AND SENIOR LEGAL ANALYST: Projecting some confidence on day 10 of his criminal trial. Is it the classic Donald Trump spin or is he may be on to something? Welcome to a special edition of LAURA COATES LIVE alongside Abby Phillip right here in New York. In just hours from now, Abby, Donald Trump will face his 11th day on trial for falsifying business records to cover up a sex scandal. Here you see him across the two weeks that he has now spent listening to testimony inside that cold 15th floor Manhattan courtroom. And in between the whispers to his lawyers and the note passing and the closing of his eyes, the jury is starting to see and hear testimony surrounding a very key question: Just how involved was Donald Trump in the payouts to quiet, damaging stories from Stormy Daniels, from Karen McDougal before the 2016 election? ABBY PHILLIP, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL CORRESPONDENT: Prosecutors pulled out the receipts today in the form of phone calls that Michael Cohen had secretly recorded. In one of those calls, Cohen is heard telling Stormy's former lawyer, Keith Davidson, that Trump was upset with the Stormy Daniels deal. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) MICHAEL COHEN, FORMER DONALD TRUMP'S ATTORNEY (voice-over): What about me? And I can't -- I can't even tell you how many times he said to me, you know, "I hate the fact that we did it." And my comment to him was, "But every person that you've spoken to told you it was the right move." (END VIDEO CLIP) PHILLIP: Now, all of that came after what has been described as a bruising cross-examination of Keith Davidson. The defense tried to torpedo his credibility in front of the jury by going full TMZ, practically, bringing up his alleged cash-for-dirt deals that were tied to a number of celebrity scandals. Trump's lawyer questioned Davidson about if he had helped a client get paid for leaking information about Lindsay Lohan's rehab stint. "I don't recall," Davidson said. He was also asked if he brokered a deal of a sex tape involving a reality star, Tila Tequila. "I believe so," Davidson said. Davidson was also asked if he was investigated by law enforcement in connection with the Hulk Hogan sex tape. "That's true," he said. Now, though he denied extorting anyone -- COATES: And then there was, of course, the question of whether he had extracted, that was the phrase, extracted sums of money from Charlie Sheen. And from the transcript, question, do you remember Mr. Sheen paying your client, Capri Anderson? Answer, I'm not going to discuss that. Well, we are back here with our panel to discuss a whole lot of things. PHILLIP: We're going to discuss it. COATES: We're talking about all of it. I've got hot tea for that purpose. And joining us is hour, Hugo Lowell, a political investigations reporter with "The Guardian." He was actually in court today. And Devlin Barrett, a law enforcement reporter with "The Washington Post." He, too, was in the courtroom. Let's begin with what happened today. I got to know, when you were inside that court, Devlin, what was the atmosphere like? And was Trump thinking -- did his body, not the climate, not the temperature, but the heat -- DEVLIN BARRETT, LAW ENFORCEMENT REPORTER, WASHINGTON POST: It got hot. COATES: It got hot. BARRETT: Both ways. COATES: Was it like really hot in terms of him thinking, wait, this is hurting this prosecution? BARRETT: It got state court hot. (LAUGHTER) So, one, it's warmed up outside. So, the courthouse is now warm. The courtroom is now warm. Didn't love that personally. But there was also a lot of friction, as you talked about, between Emil Bove, the Trump lawyer, and Keith Davidson. Keith Davidson -- it's the beauty of cross-examination, right? On direct, Keith Davidson being questioned by the prosecutors, very calm, very -- very cool, a little funny. On cross, when Trump's lawyers are asking him, combative, argumentative. He and the Trump lawyer really went at each other a couple of times over this question of extortion. Obviously, the lawyer is arguing, I didn't extort anybody, I've never extorted anyone. The Trump lawyer also suggested he had threatened people, which he denied. [23:04:55] And I think Trump's team scored some points today in the sense that they made this whole world look dirty and sleazy, and that Trump was, in some ways, in the Trump characterization, a celebrity victim of these shakedowns. But I'll be honest, even if the jury believes that, I don't know how that ultimately matters for the verdict here because, you know, Stormy Daniels and Keith Davidson didn't fill out Trump's accounting books. COATES: You know -- PHILLIP: Yeah. It's not the actual pay -- it's not the actual payment. But here's the thing that I am not understanding. My understanding is that in opening statements, the judge sustained an objection on the use of that word "extortion." So why allow a whole line of questioning about extortion in the cross-examination? I don't understand. COATES: You know, I think in part, and we can talk about this, I think part of the reason is, in the opening statements, everything a lawyer says is not evidence in a case. It only has to come in through the testimony of a witness. And so, if you're opening that door through the actual question of somebody and they're testifying about it, that's different -- PHILLIP: Yeah. COATES: -- than just throwing out there, this person is that. But I found it really interesting as well, Abby, this one part, I'd love to hear from you on this, because as Devlin is describing it, what a different scenario to go at the sort of sleaze factor of a Keith Davidson as opposed to the David Pecker. I mean, it seems like -- it qualitatively was different, when I think they were attempting at least to talk about the "National Enquirer." They didn't seem to go that level with the cross for him. What was the difference that you saw? HUGO LOWELL, POLITICAL INVESTIGATIONS REPORTER, THE GUARDIAN: Yeah, I think the cross was bizarre in a way because the right thing for Emil Bove to do was probably to say, you know, did you have any interactions with Trump? No. Did you have any interactions with Trump in the White House or before when he was a candidate or in any way? And that really didn't come up at all, and really it was focused on painting Keith Davidson as a sleazebag. And I think, to Devlin's point, it was clear that everyone thought that, yeah, Keith Davidson is a sleazebag, and yet we still get to the point that even if that's true, the money was paid, the books were allegedly falsified, and so it doesn't really matter from a legal perspective whether Keith Davidson is a sleazebag. And I wonder if that was the approach with Keith Davidson because they didn't really have anything else to go off with David Pecker as well. JOEY JACKSON, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: So here was the rationale as to why -- as to whether it worked or not, that's an open question. I think the rationale of a sleazebag is we have this thing called an election, and we have this lawyer who wants to leverage, based upon what they're doing and how they actually go about their business, leverage you, and they're trying to make the proximity of your payment as close to what's important to you as possible. So, from a prosecutor's perspective, the prosecutor obviously wants the election to matter. It has to matter with regard to tying this whole thing in. But if you're the defense attorney, I'm not the one. Trump's not the one concerned about the election. The lawyer is concerned about it because he's leveraging him, and he's trying to get the most out of him like he does all the rest of his clients, and that's what makes him sleazy. That's the argument they're going to make, by flipping this whole election question. Remember the elephant in the room. The elephant in the room is you get the felony, if you can tie in that he was trying to do this, that is Trump, for purposes of the election benefit, If you spin it to make it the attorney who's worried about the election because he can now -- ROBERT RAY, REPRESENTED TRUMP IN FIRST IMPEACHMENT TRIAL: Extract the payment. JACKSON: -- extract maximum payment. RAY: Right. JACKSON: That's why the whole sleaze factor came up. PHILLIP: So, Jennifer, I mean, I'm curious. I mean, do you buy the idea that this being characterized as an extortion can negate the criminal aspect of it, which is not that there was money paid, but rather that Trump tried to conceal it for the purposes of concealing an election-related payment that he would have had to otherwise disclose? JENNIFER RODGERS, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: Yeah -- no, it doesn't. I mean, it makes him more sympathetic. I mean, I think if they could convince the jury that this was a false allegation and Stormy Daniels really was just this opportunistic person who saw this chance to get some money out of someone, you know, they would be less inclined to find that he had the intent maybe. But it doesn't really technically undercut any of the elements of the offense. And, you know, also, it's not the case, like, I think by the end of this trial, we will know full well that that encounter did happen and that everyone, Trump and all of his co-conspirators, are all talking about the election as the reason why she had to be paid off and it had to be hidden. COATES: Well, lead into it a little more because I'm curious about the idea of him being sympathetic. I think people might think instantly, well, are you suggesting, you know, that there would be a time when a juror would have the information, they'd meet their burden of proof, and they essentially nullify it? They say, look, that's all true. But I feel bad for the guy. RODGERS: I think jurors do all sorts of stuff in the jury room. I mean, nullification is a real thing. Defense lawyers do everything they can to get just one of those people to find something in their heads that causes them to say, I'm not going to do this. It's a black box. We rarely dig in at all to what happens in there. So yeah, I think they're going for anything. BARRETT: And look, there's one way this strategy could work. Like, I think we were all in agreement, like, Stormy Daniels didn't cook the books here. [23:10:02] Like, that's not going to help him. But here's the way it could work, and I've seen it work in other trials. Sometimes, if the defense can show that every government witness is basically a terrible person and what you've basically got is a whole group of terrible people pointing the finger at someone else, sometimes, the jury basically says, we wash our hands of this whole thing. These are awful people. I've seen it in drug cases. I've seen it in some violent crime cases. If the defense has one chance here, it's to try to convince the jury that all these people that the government have lined up to point the finger at Trump are themselves awful and therefore not worth it. RAY: Because they're not really engaged in a conspiracy. They're engaged in motivations for their own personal benefit with their own agendas. And again, you know, you don't have to be successful in persuading all of the jurors that that's the case. All you really have to do is persuade enough of the jurors or perhaps even just one juror that there's reasonable doubt about whether or not the government's theory and narrative that there's a conspiracy, as Jennifer suggests, that holds all of this together, where they're all acting in concert toward a common objective to influence the outcome of an election, and the defense presentation is in closing arguments, listen, that's not really what's going on here. You saw all these witnesses and you saw what they were about and you saw what all their agendas were. This wasn't a conspiracy that coheres. These people were all out to take advantage of the situation and take advantage of the fact that there was an election. They weren't doing it to influence the election. They didn't give a damn one way or another what the outcome of the election was. What they were after was, you know, their own personal benefit. COATES: But what about on that point? I want to play for the audience, though, because there was this moment where the defense was trying to paint Michael Cohen as one we know is going to be a big witness in this case, as somebody whose motivation was, it might be revenge, pure and simple revenge over not getting a job at the White House. This is from Davidson in the court's transcript describing a call with Michael Cohen. It says, "He said something to the effect of Jesus Christ. Can you get can you effing believe I'm not going to Washington after everything I've done for that effing guy? I can't believe I'm not going to Washington. I've saved that guy's ass so many times. You don't even know." This idea of the motivation, not just in terms of why to act in the first instance -- this is, by the way, some things that the jury has heard about Michael Cohen -- this does not paint the most favorable picture, Abby, about this particular witness. But to your point, Robert, it's no longer maybe the motivation about why to pay, but maybe the motivation of why to testify? RAY: Well, sure. I mean, look, I don't want to overstate that either. Look -- I mean, he -- you know, Michael Cohen suffers a disease that a lot of people suffer from around political campaigns, and that is delusions of grandeur. They think as a result of helping the candidate, all of a sudden, they're qualified to be, you know, attorney general of the United States. Very few people are qualified to be attorney general of the United States. Michael Cohen is not one of them, okay? So that's just the reality. Nevertheless, you know, you raise the specter of any number of reasons why people are disgruntled or have their own agendas. You know, the jury evaluates all that with common sense. I don't know that that's necessarily going to be dispositive. I mean, that's just a factor for them to consider. I mean, you know, overall, that's why a trial goes on for a number of days. We're only in day 10. You know, there are good days and bad days. And the jury is going to evaluate all of this, you know, together as a meaningful whole. They're not going to focus on one day's testimony about whether or not, you know, Emil Bove was outstanding on cross- examination about beating somebody up about the unseemly nature of Hollywood and how people, you know, extract payments from -- COATES: What was a jury doing at that point in time? Were they -- were they smirking? Were they laughing? Were they (INAUDIBLE)? What was going on? LOWELL: So, admittedly, Devlin and I were both in the overflow room. (LAUGHTER) COATES: I had one question for you just now. I wanted all -- UNKNOWN: You had your one big chance. COATES: Are you kidding me? Well, I appreciate your honesty and candor. Stick around, everyone. Donald Trump once again shifts his tune on whether or not he'll testify. And up next, the new excuse he's presenting that's not at all accurate. Plus, the relatively unusual gag order request his team made the judge consider. (COMMERCIAL BREAK) [23:15:00] (COMMERCIAL BREAK) COATES: Well, Donald Trump was complaining today about the gag order and yet again making a false claim about what he's allowed or maybe not allowed to do. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) TRUMP: Well, I'm not allowed to testify. I'm under a gag order, I guess. I can't even testify at all. Now, we're going to be appealing the gag order. (END VIDEO CLIP) COATES: Now, the gag order does not stop him from testifying. I don't know if you saw the attorney who was like -- I don't know what that nod was. PHILLIP: I cannot see that. COATES: Was it something? And just last week, Trump said that he would testify -- quote -- "if necessary." And today, prosecutors argue that Trump violated the gag order four more times by making false claims about the jury and attacking witnesses. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) TRUMP: When are they going to look at all the lies that Cohen did in the last trial? He got caught lying in the last trial. So, he got caught lying, pure lying. (Voice-over): That jury was picked so fast. Ninety-five percent Democrats. You think of it as a purely Democrat area. It's a very unfair situation. Michael Cohen is a convicted liar and he's got no credibility whatsoever. UNKNOWN (voice-over): Are you following David Pecker's testimony so far and when was the last time you spoke to him? TRUMP: No, he has been very nice. I mean, he has been -- David has been very nice. He's a nice guy. (END VIDEO CLIP) PHILLIP: Now, Judge Merchan has already found that Trump violated the gag order nine times. Now, these online posts find Trump about nine grands, and the judge even threatened jail. But prosecutors say they only want Trump -- want to find Trump. They don't even want to put jail on the table here for him. Our panel is back with us. At the end of the day, the one violation, you guys have all heard me with my spiel now, the one violation that matters at this point is probably the one about the jury. And that's actually the one that the judge highlighted and basically said, why is he talking about the jury? [23:20:01] And I think that is really the question here. At that point, I think the judge has to make decision about whether or not that and things like that really cross the line, and it seems like he probably will. JACKSON: Yeah. You know, Abby, I think they all matter. They being all violations if the judge finds violations of the gag order, right? The gag order has a very important place. I really believe this. It's about the safety of people. And those people need to be protected because if you're spinning a narrative, right, and the narrative is not true or what have you, I just think that people could really be in danger. PHILLIP: Yeah. JACKSON: So, I think -- RAY: Are they in danger as a result of the fact that 95% of them are Democrats? PHILLIP: Well, I think the issue is -- RAY: Can we just exercise some common sense here? His audience is not the jury. Okay? I mean, let's just wake up to reality. Donald Trump's audience with regard to the gag order is the electorate, guys. It's not the jury. JACKSON: So, we get it. PHILLIP: Here's the issue with the -- here is the issue with the 95% Democrats. RAY: Right? I mean, it's the electorate. Okay, go ahead. PHILLIP: First of all, Donald Trump is not sitting there Googling and trying to figure out where these people fall in the ideological spectrum. He is trying to basically paint them with a broad brush. And you're right, the audience is not the jury, the audience is his supporters who we know have a history of threatening people. So that actually is on the table. JACKSON: So, could I just respond to that, though? When you say the jury -- RAY: I meant the electorate in the sense of he cares about only one thing -- JACKSON: Right. RAY: -- which is, how are people going to vote in November? He's not interested in trying to influence the jury in that way. JACKSON: It doesn't matter what his motivations are. It matters what the result of his activities are. It doesn't matter the motivations. RAY: Do you think it's threatening to people -- JACKSON: No -- RAY: -- to identify them as 95% Democrats? JACKSON: What I think -- RAY: Especially if it's true. JACKSON: Let me tell you what I think. Let me tell you what I think. What I think is, if you start talking about a jury and you start coloring people's opinion about the jury being unfair, and you have a jury that ultimately reaches a verdict that's unfavorable, and you have someone on the jury who is outed, that person is in danger, you follow that logic? So, what that means to me is that if you're making broad sweeping references to a jury and people make the connection of who's on that jury, they're going through great pains of not showing who that jury is. They're not identified. Why? Why? Because in the event that people find out, there could be consequences as to what they say and what they do. Why? Because they could be intimidated with respect to their verdict. So, unlike you, I do believe, when you make broad references to a jury, that matters because jurors have families. RAY: I just think that's not true. JACKSON: You could disagree. RAY: I disagree. JACKSON: Jurors have families. Jurors really, right? RAY: Sure. JACKSON: Like everybody else has the right to be protected. And in the event that their life is endangered because you're making ridiculous claims about them, that, to me, is problematic. PHILLIP: Well, here, we don't have to -- we don't have to stretch to understand the predicate for this. In Georgia, Trump decided that he was going to say the two election workers were Democrats, that they were rigging the election. He just said it. And the threats came. They had to move. JACKSON: Bingo. PHILLIP: They lost -- they said -- JACKSON: Correct. PHILLIP: -- they lost the ability to use their names. So, it has happened. COATES: Even here, too, Abby, a juror initially did say, I don't want to be on this jury. The person was already in panel. RAY: Right. COATES: And then was asked to be taken off because they were afraid their anonymity had been compromised, which could maybe lead to public safety concerns. Is that accurate? RAY: Look, you know, generally speaking, I don't think it's wise to be commenting about jurors, no matter who you are -- COATES: Then why would Joey's comment nonsense to you, then? RAY: -- during the pendency of a trial. I think it's a nonsense to think that identifying jurors as 95% Democrats. I don't find that to be threatening. COATES: That was just one of the sentences, though. The full context also included the idea that it was -- RAY: But they were unfair. PHILLIP: Rigged against him. COATES: It was picked so fast. It was a very unfair process. PHILLIP: Yeah. RAY: Okay. I don't find any -- do you find any of that threatening? I don't find any of that threatening. JACKSON: So, I do -- RAY: Okay. JACKSON: -- because what happens is then it takes out the notion that a jury is there that's selected by both parties, by the way. In a jury selection process, you have both parties. RAY: In New York? JACKSON: That's the prosecution and the defense. Yes, in New York, particularly. This is where I practiced for a long time. RAY: Yeah. JACKSON: And what we do, it's fair, believe it or not, the defense has an opportunity to question witnesses. The prosecution does, too. There are two types of challenges. One is for cause, and if it's for cause because you can't be fair, you're excluded. The other is peremptory, which is totally your discretion. But at the end of the day, the reason it matters is because it throws away the faith in the system. If people have the notion that they weren't listening to evidence, they just were Democrats and liberals who just decided they hate Trump. Then, again, it goes back to danger, it goes back to intimidation, it goes back to the issue of people who can be harmed. And that's why to me, it may be nonsense to you, but to me, I really believe it's important. That's why the gag order is limited to people like jurors, like witnesses, and like other people who could be in danger based upon a bully pulpit of 70 million people. COATES: Oh, there's a mic drop. Okay, there you go. Anyway, I'll leave it on there. PHILLIP: We're going to let that last word stand. COATES: But remember, the judge did say (INAUDIBLE). I had a Wimbledon neck just now. I was like this. I mean, the bob was bobbing. [23:24:58] But there was a moment in time the judge questioned if their order was not ambiguous. Not to talk about a jury. Then they need to even go to the next sentence of what you said about the jury. PHILLIP: Yeah, exactly. And I think that that is -- don't -- it's not that broad. I mean, he could talk about a lot of other things. And he could talk about the case. He just cannot talk about the jury and about the witnesses. And he keeps doing it or at least he had been doing it until he was last fined $9,000. So, we will see if that stands. Everyone, stand by for us. Up ahead, he did it in 2016. He did it again in 2020. And now, Trump is once again casting doubt on whether he will accept the 2024 election results. Colorado's secretary of state is here with us to react. That's next. (COMMERCIAL BREAK) [23:30:00] (COMMERCIAL BREAK) PHILLIP: There is some consistency when it comes to Donald Trump. And it's about one thing. Accepting the outcome of the election only when it suits him. Here he is back in 2016. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) UNKNOWN (voice-over): Do you make the same commitment that you will absolutely, sir, that you will absolutely accept the result of this election? TRUMP: I will look at it at the time. I'm not looking at anything now. I'll look at it at the time. (END VIDEO CLIP) PHILLIP: So, what happened when he was asked yet again? Well, four years later, here. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) CHRIS WALLACE, BROADCAST JOURNALIST: Can you give a direct answer? You will accept the election? TRUMP: I have to see. Look, I have to see. No, I'm not going to just say yes. (END VIDEO CLIP) PHILLIP: Newsflash, he did not accept the results of that election, which brings us to today. Will 2024 be any different? Well, you might have guessed it. Trump is telling the Milwaukee Sentinel-Journal -- quote -- "If everything is honest, I'd gladly accept the results. If it's not, you have to fight for the right of the country." Now, as for President Biden, he does pledge to accept the will of the voters in November. Joining me now is Colorado Secretary of State Jena Griswold. She supported the effort to remove Donald Trump from the state's 2024 ballot, which the Supreme Court ultimately rejected. Secretary Griswold, thanks for joining us tonight. I wonder what your reaction is to Donald Trump's repeated denial that he will accept the results of the election even if he loses. JENA GRISWOLD, COLORADO SECRETARY OF STATE: Well, thanks for having me on this evening. And unfortunately, Donald Trump continues to be a tremendous threat to American democracy. In 2020, he laid the groundwork to allege that the election was stolen from him in the event of a loss. That's exactly what he is doing again. And we know what happened in 2020. His lies led to threats against election workers, lawsuits filed all across the country to try to steal the election, and then ultimately, he incited the insurrection. I think a big difference between then and now is he has been pushing out his big lie for the last four years. He's creating a toxic and dangerous situation. But just like in 2020, American democracy survived. I am very optimistic that we're going to get through whatever Donald Trump tries to pull this election cycle also. PHILLIP: You know, it's interesting. We've been discussing at length the hush money trial in New York, and there's a new CNN poll that indicates a growing number of Americans say that even if the charges across all of the Trump criminal trials are true, that they don't think it's relevant for the fitness for the presidency. That includes the effort to overturn the 2020 election. So, why do you think that we're seeing that reaction from the electorate even as all of this legal trouble looms over Donald Trump? GRISWOLD: First off, I would say one of your panelists from the last segment, Robert Ray, is so far off in his understanding or at least what he says Donald Trump's words lead to. You know, Donald Trump talking about a jury is really problematic. As a defendant in the case to try to disqualify Donald Trump, I received over 800 violent threats or death threats. Donald Trump knows exactly what he does or what he is doing. Excuse me. Anybody who stands up against him or puts up some type of barrier, he starts talking about them and the threats roll in. But ultimately, when it comes to all of these indictments, when it comes to what happened in 2020, all the felony charges against him, Donald Trump and allies are trying to rewrite history. That's what the big lie is about. That's what all their lies are about. And it's not just Donald Trump. The speaker of the House is an election denier. He just announced some cockamamie scheme the other week, trying to undermine elections. There are 172 election deniers walking the halls of Congress. And their lies do matter because they affect election administration. But they also eventually erode confidence, so that not everybody understands what is fact and what is totally made up by the far right. With that said, Abby, again, I do think Americans are good people. They believe in fairness. I do think there will be an effect of the attempted stealing of the 2020 election and all the other things that have happened since then on the 2024 presidential election. [23:35:00] PHILLIP: Secretary Griswold, we just had a lengthy debate about what you were talking about as it pertains to the threat factor. Robert Ray is actually still with us. I just want to give him a second to respond, if you will, to what the secretary said. RAY: I think the reason that the poll numbers are reflecting what they are reflecting is that, first, Ms. Griswold's efforts to try to interfere with an election by removing a candidate from office by virtue of taking that candidate off the ballot was unprecedented. That didn't go over well at the Supreme Court. It lost unanimously 9 to nothing, which suggests that it was an effort that should never have been engaged in in the first place. And with regard to the cases, I think the electorate -- GRISWOLD: -- to jump in -- RAY: Well, hold on a second. GRISWOLD: Well, let's just take a step back. We're talking about election lies, and what you just said is an election lie. RAY: It wasn't a lie that the Supreme Court ruled 9 to nothing, that it was an improper exercise of state power to remove a candidate from the ballot. PHILLIP: Robert, let's her finish and -- RAY: That's a pretty extraordinary thing. GRISWOLD: The election lie was that you said that I brought this effort to remove Donald Trump. I was a defendant. And just like that jury pool is judged, is sitting there to look at the facts and judge. They didn't raise their hand. They didn't try to do anything to impede the former president. They're in a very similar situation. So, I would ask you, stop lying. Please learn the facts because all these lies actually do matter. PHILLIP: Colorado Secretary of State Jena Griswold, thanks for joining us. We appreciate you having a little back and forth there with Robert Ray. Thank you both very much. And our panel is back with us here in New York, including CNN political commentators Ana Navarro, Jamal Simmons. Robert, thank you for -- we wanted to give you an opportunity to respond since she brought your name into the conversation. But what she's saying about Donald Trump and the threat he poses going forward, I think, is looming over all of this because he keeps talking about what he's going to do and what he's not going to do. And principle among them is whether or not he's going to be willing to just do what all the other presidents have done and accept the results of the election. JAMAL SIMMONS, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: He's loading for bear for this election not to work out. Here's what we know. The RNC had 38 community action centers where they were supposed to be reaching out to minority communities around the country. They've reduced that number to seven. And you know what they've done instead? They've increased to 15 the number of election integrity offices that are meant to monitor the -- quote, unquote -- "monitor" the vote in certain states and then collect evidence for post-election litigation. They're not planning to win the ballot box. They're planning to fight this thing in the courts and then ultimately probably in the Congress, and do what they did on January 6th, but with more success. ANA NAVARRO, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: We already know that Donald Trump is emotionally, psychologically, physically incapable of admitting defeat. It's just not in him, right? He's not you were talking about every other president. He's not like every other president. He's got a different emotional makeup. I'm not a psychologist. I'm not a psychiatrist. I'm not going to diagnose him. But as a lay person, this man cannot admit defeat. We're now almost four years into Joe Biden. He still can't admit that he lost to Joe Biden. He never will. He won't admit it in 2020. And if he loses again in 2024, he won't admit it then. COATES: The question really is the consequence. NAVARRO: His tombstone is going to say, I won. COATES: Well, I mean, the consequence of it is a question about how people view the fairness and also the strength of our system, right? It's a democracy if you can keep it. And if you have somebody in a republic, if you can keep it, if you have somebody at the highest level of the land, really, who doesn't think we actually or doesn't want people to believe we have fair and free elections, you know, it doesn't bode well for those who are carrying out the everyday dues that we need so badly to actually have our democracy work. But it's the idea of the consistency, not only in court, but also what's happening on the campaign trail. There's connected tissue there, right? He doesn't want to admit that the system is fair unless he can point to a result where he wins. LOWELL: I think that's right. And I think it's evident on the campaign trail when he talks about, you know, two-tiered systems of justice. COATES: Uh-hmm. LOWELL: And it's not like that at all. And he has claimed that actually in all of his criminal cases, whether it's federal and state and local or whatever. You know -- I mean, in this case, which is not being brought by the Manhattan District Attorney, which is not part of the Justice Department, which is not part of the Biden administration, and he's still trying to say that there are two tiers of justice and that they're not prosecuting Hunter Biden or they're not prosecuting President Biden, but they're indicting me, they're indicting me on these classified documents cases, for instance, right? [23:40:11] And it just doesn't follow. It doesn't follow on the logic that he's being a local D.A. in Manhattan is prosecuting under the Biden administration's agenda. It doesn't follow the fact that he's being treated the same -- treated differently from any other criminal defendant in any of these criminal cases. For instance, the classified documents case. If there was any other defendant who acted in the way that Trump had, hoarding classified documents at his resort, they would be prosecuted. And for him to claim that he is being treated unfairly just doesn't pass. COATES: Well, Special Counsel Robert -- RAY: Do we like Joe Biden's documents in his garage? COATES: No. Well, I was going to say, Special Counsel Robert Herr addressed this issue in part and did talk about, as have others, talked about the distinction in that it was the intent to double down and maintain them when asked for them back as well. But I want to turn for a second to Joe Biden, the President of the United States, on the response to the protests at the universities, in particular, Jamal, because when you're not the person in the Oval Office, you can take a more reactive and condemning role than you can if you're the person who must do something in response. And Trump has certainly been very critical of Biden's response or lack thereof. I want to play for you, because just hours after officers in riot gear arrested more than 200 protesters at UCLA, this has been happening all across the country, Biden did condemn the violence and the antisemitism that has erupted. Listen to what he had to say. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) JOE BIDEN, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: Trespassing, breaking windows, shutting down campuses, forcing the cancellation of classes and graduations. None of this is a peaceful protest. Dissent is essential to democracy, but dissent must never lead to disorder. UNKNOWN (voice-over): Have the protests forced you to reconsider any of the policies with regard to the region? BIDEN: No. (END VIDEO CLIP) COATES: Jamal, what did you make of that message? Was it forceful enough? Did it meet the moment? SIMMONS: I thought it was forceful. I thought it met the moment. But here's the thing. We as a society have to really wrap our minds around policing the unlawful, but protecting the unpopular. Right? We've got to have a system where these kids can come out and say things that we may not like to hear, but they have a right to do them. They do not have a right, however, to break the law. And I think they know that when every civil rights movement of our past has broken the law, they face consequences. So, the consequences have to come. But we do have to make sure that what we're doing is not overreacting to the point where we're stopping people from being able to have a lawful conversation that we may find distasteful. PHILLIP: It seems like what's underneath the surface here is, and some people have said this, some lawmakers have said this, if this were about, you know, Black students being confronted with hate speech on their campuses, the reaction would be different, maybe from these very students who are camping out on the lawns. So, it almost feels like there's a desire to see an even-handedness in the reaction, not from a legalistic perspective, but from a normative perspective of what's acceptable on our college campuses. And because that's not happening, that's why we're seeing so much disappointment, it seems, from people that -- maybe we don't like what these students have to say, but in another context, even if we didn't like it, even if it's not illegal, there would be a lot of pressure to shut it down. NAVARRO: Look, I think -- I think the disappointment comes from everybody in America, frankly, understanding just how difficult a conflict this is. It's a conflict that far precedes this and the question of, how does it help advance a solution in the region to have pro-Palestinian and pro-Israeli kids coming to blows in university campuses? And, you know, part of my disappointment, frankly, is that we are paying so much attention and rightly so focusing on what's happening in these university campuses. We're not talking about the 129, 129 hostages that are still being held by Hamas, hopefully alive. And we're not talking about the things that, frankly, the Biden administration is doing right now. Tony Blinken is in the region right now trying to negotiate this deal. So, I think the disappointment is, for many reasons, while still balancing this issue of I recognize they have a right to protest, I recognize they have a right to freedom of speech, but how is it helping the overall goal we all want, which is coexistence, peaceful coexistence here and there? [23:44:58] BARRETT: Look, I am just a dumb cop reporter, but I will tell you, as a father, what is most striking to me about this issue is that for many, many young people in America, this is a very clear-cut issue. And what you're talking about, the complexity, the dynamic, they do not see that. They see a very clear-cut moral problem that this country is contributing to. And I'm not saying who has to make who -- make anyone else agree with anyone else. I'm saying it seems very clear to me, just as I have gone through the city in the last two weeks, that there is a huge generational gap here. PHILLIP: Yeah. NAVARRO: Oh, yeah. BARRETT: And young people see this very, very different. PHILLIP: I don't -- I don't -- I don't think we should paint too broad of a brush here. There are a lot of young people who are not on university campuses, and there are a lot of young Jewish people who also see the issue as less clear-cut, right? And I think that that is part of the dynamic as well. That is why we are seeing these divisions. SIMMONS: What else is obvious, though? What else is obvious is that we also have to remember there are people in the world who want to -- maybe they have an opinion one way or the other, but what they really want is to have Americans at each other's throats, because the more we're fighting each other, the less we're able to do the things around the world that we need to do. And I think that there are actors in the world who are fomenting this and making sure that we are all torqued up to 11 as we combat this issue. RAY: But if young people in America are supporting antisemitism and are supporting terrorists, then we've got a problem with young people in America. BARRETT: I didn't say that. PHILLIP: I don't think -- BARRETT: And I don't think -- I didn't say that. I actually don't think that -- RAY: Well, I hope that's not true. But what you see being said is disturbing, which is why I think a lot of Americans have a real problem with this. PHILLIP: There is a clear minor -- RAY: You know, separate and apart from the violence problem which is a separate problem. PHILLIP: There's a clear minority that is at play here, certainly, but a minority. Agitators and others probably driving some of that, but I don't think you can -- again, let's not paint with broad brushes here. COATES: I think one thing is clear, and this is not a problem to solve today, that everyone's moral compass does not point in the same direction, period. Stand by everyone. You've got questions about the big developments and the Trump hush money trial? And you know what? We've got answers for you. We're going to take your live calls and questions next. (COMMERCIAL BREAK) [23:50:00] (COMMERCIAL BREAK) COATES: Can you believe we now have 10 days of the hush money trial already in the books? And with all the twists, the turns, and salacious developments, the questions, well, they're mounting. And tonight, we're taking your calls. (PHONE RINGING) We've got the panel here to help answer them as well. If you want to participate, just go to CNN.com/TrumpTrialQuestions, fill out the form, type in your question there, and then we'll reach out to have you call in as the trial unfolds. We will get to our first caller tonight. Who do we got here? We've got Norman from Stockbridge, Georgia. Norman, what's your question? NORMAN, CALLER FROM STOCKBRIDGE, GEORGIA (via telephone): Hi, Laura. COATES: Hi. NORMAN (via telephone): If this trial continues for weeks, do you think the jury over time will become desensitized to Trump's fame and begin to see him as an everyday citizen? And if so, would that be to his benefit or detriment? COATES: That's a great question. I see you nodding, Joey and Jennifer. What's going on? JACKSON: I think it's a great question, and I do think that the more the trial goes on, the more he is a defendant in the case. The more the jury sees the facts, the more they assess whether the facts find him guilty or not so much. And so, that's my answer to your caller. COATES: Do you agree? RODGERS: Yeah, I agree. Well, when they first walked in, a lot of the jurors who didn't make it onto the jury would say, oh, we walked in and we were so stunned. Oh my gosh, there's the president. But now they see him every day, all day. Everybody's yawning, stretching, and so on. He becomes a normal person. PHILLIP: So, Devlin, you've been in there. Is it wearing off? BARRETT: It is wearing off. There was a celebrity shock factor when they first came in. I think what's interesting now is, first of all, this jury is very -- like, jury duty is an amateur occupation. It's not a profession. But they are incredibly professional in how they behave in there. And so, they walk past him. Every time they leave the room, they walk right past him. They are, you know, four or five feet away from him. And he's fairly stoic. And they, by and large, do not make eye contact with him. I think some people try to over-interpret that, what it means. I take it mostly as the jurors being careful. COATES: Hmm. BARRETT: And I think you cannot spend that much time in a room with another human being and not see them as more of a human being. I think that's true. But at the same time, he still carries all the trappings of a former president. The Secret Service is there. So, it's never going to go away completely. PHILLIP: Yeah. COATES: Good point. Let's go to Erin from Lakeland, Florida. Erin, what's your question? ERIN, CALLER FROM LAKELAND, FLORIDA (via telephone): Yes. Good evening. I would like to know whether the charge for which Trump is standing trial is typically one that is prosecuted with some modicum of regularity. In other words, is Trump being tried on an obscure law that is rarely prosecuted such that he can try to say later that he's being singled out? COATES: Robert Ray is champing at the bit to answer this question. Robert Ray, what's your response? RAY: I think it's complicated to answer that. On the one hand, the books and records aspect of the law is fairly regularly prosecuted. So, I don't think that anybody could really seriously make the argument that he's being singled out for prosecution of something that no one else would be prosecuted for. On the other hand, this case is a little unusual. I think, as most commentators have recognized on both the left and the right, that the application of the statute in order to enhance it into a felony is an unusual application of this law. It is one that caused, I think, Cy Vance, who had the office before the current district attorney, gave him pause. I think they're acting -- that's a novel application here. I wouldn't say it's ever happened before, but it is an unusual application. [23:54:56] So, I think on that aspect of it, I do think to answer the caller's question, Donald Trump does have an argument that that's one where ordinary prosecutions and ordinary prosecutors would probably not bring that charge. COATES: Good point. Jerri in Palm Harbor, Florida, you got a question. Hi, Jerri. JERRI, CALLER FROM PALM HARBOR, FLORIDA (via telephone): Hi, Laura. COATES: Hi. JERRI (via telephone): Can Trump lawyers be held for sanctions and retribution for not controlling their client in the gag order? COATES: Oh, the defense counsel, Joey Jackson, just started laughing. Are you nervous? What's your answer? JACKSON: Listen, I'm nervous because the attorneys do not get the brunt of the frustration based upon what your clients do. And so, great question by the caller, but you have to be careful. The attorneys, you can see when they're answering the question to the judge, even the judge is saying, you're losing credibility with me, because, really, they're doing the best to defend an indefensible position. So, the attorneys are held harmless. You control your client to the extent that you can, but you cannot be sanctioned or put in jail for behavior that is not yours. COATES: But you get reputation in front of that judge maybe. That's part of the issue. JACKSON: Yes. COATES: Thank you to the panel to help answering all these questions. And hey, thanks to everyone who also called in. You have a question you'd like us to answer on the Trump trial? We'd love to hear from you. Just submit your questions at CNN.com/TrumpTrialQuestions. And thank you all for watching. PHILLIP: Our coverage continues with "ANDERSON COOPER 360." That's next. (COMMERCIAL BREAK) [00:00:00] (COMMERCIAL BREAK)