Anderson Cooper 360 Degrees Aired May 03, 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. I was privileged to watch some of day 11 inside the courtroom today. It was both - it was fascinating to see up close. Hope Hicks, once a top advisor of former president testifying for the prosecution, recounting first the Access Hollywood tape coming out, then the Stormy Daniels and Karen McDougal revelations, finishing her direct testimony with a potentially damaging account of what the former president said in retrospect when the Daniels story finally broke in 2018. Then moments later, Hope Hicks started crying. Hicks in that final answer saying, "It was Mr. Trump's opinion that it was better to be dealing with it now and that it would have been bad to have that story come out before the election." Which could bolster the prosecution case that the former president was motivated by campaign and not necessarily family concerns and suppressing both that and the Karen McDougal stories before the 2016 election. Under cross examination, though, she did paint her old boss as a family man who was concerned about the impact on his wife. Her testimony and Michael Cohen also provided fodder for both sides, frankly, painting him as someone who would sometimes, in her words, go rogue, but also casting doubt on the defense theory that Cohen paid off Stormy Daniels on his own initiative. In general, the picture she painted was a hands on Donald Trump, deeply involved in the details of his business and his campaign, motivated largely by political considerations and that he was fully aware of what the payment to Stormy Daniels had bought him in 2016. We've just gotten the full trial transcript from today, including the context of Hope Hicks' final answer to the prosecution question about what then-President Trump said in 2018 when news of the Daniels payout finally broke. And I'm quoting now from that transcript: "He wanted to know how it was playing, and just my thoughts and opinion about this story versus having the story - a different kind of story before the election had Mr. Cohen not made that payment." Joining us once again tonight, New York defense attorney Arthur Aidala, CNN's Laura Coates, who was also in the court for - today particularly for that moment, CNN's Abby Phillip and Kaitlan Collins, also former Trump White House communications director, Alyssa Farah Griffin, and CNN's Kara Scannell, who was also in court throughout today. Kara, let's start with you. I mean, it is fascinating - this is my first time and you've been in there every day and in the overflow room as well. To see it all up close, what was your sense on how things went with Hope Hicks today? KARA SCANNELL, CNN CORRESPONDENT: I mean, I think she gives something to both sides, something to work with there. But I thought it was very interesting that her testimony is as she's recounting this, she is taking jurors inside the campaign and into some memorable moments, walking into the glass conference room where she's discussing the Access Hollywood tape with Donald Trump right when she found out that it happened. Also take them onto a plane when Trump was speaking at a campaign rally and she was contacted by the Wall Street Journal. They were going to go public with their story just four days before the election, saying that AMI had paid off Karen McDougal and Stormy Daniels. So she's giving the jury memorable moments that usually underscore some credibility there because the person is remembering a moment in time where they were. And what she was also saying about Michael Cohen, that she didn't think that he would behave the way that Donald Trump was telling her, that he did this essentially out of the kindness of his heart. But she did also give Trump's side something. She was very complimentary to him. She ... COOPER: She went out of her way to be complimentary, calling him a great businessman. SCANNELL: Saying there was no better messenger than him, no better brand person than him, but all the while never making eye contact with him, keeping her eyes locked on the prosecutor or looking at the jury to speak. COOPER: The moment she walked in, because I was there for the first part, for the moment she walked in, she did not look at the defense table at all. And we should point out she was there under subpoena. SCANNELL: Yes. She was there under subpoena and you could see when she walked in the room, she had her hand in a tight ball of a fist. She was clearly so uncomfortable. And she even interrupted her own testimony in the beginning to say that she was surprised by the sound of her own voice in the microphone, like really just uncomfortable about being there. COOPER: She said that she was very nervous and they suggested that she sit closer to the microphone. And once she - my understanding was - I mean, from sitting there, is once she actually could hear herself in the microphone, it seemed to help her in a way. She said to the jury, oh, now I can hear myself now. I sort of, I apologize for my nervousness, essentially. SCANNELL: Yes. And I mean, we were talking before, she was touching her hair, touching her face, just a lot of nervous kind of tics to show that she was uncomfortable sitting there, even as she's saying some things that are helpful to Donald Trump. [20:05:04] The prosecution ended their - her testimony with that line that you just read, talking about how Trump had said in 2018, he was happier to deal with these stories than he would have been if it was before the election. COOPER: So Laura, you were there for that moment and then she started to cry. Explain what happened. LAURA COATES, CNN ANCHOR AND CHIEF LEGAL ANALYST: So this was right in the moment between the direct examination ending and then the cross beginning. That's when Emil Bove got up. It wasn't immediately clear the weight of that particular statement because she'd given other statements before to articulate that he was a family man. He was concerned about his wife. There was at least one point where she described that she - he did not want his wife to have the newspapers delivered to their residents in light of the bad coverage, which of course makes you think so the lion gets up in the morning and she's reading the newspaper, so that's what he was concerned. And that he was concerned about that. He valued her opinion, all these different things and then this moment hit. And then there was kind of the transition between counsel when she began to be answered questions with someone else. And then her body just changed. She's already very soft spoken. I had not seen her in person, had not heard her speak. She did fidget quite a bit with her necklace, with her earrings, with almost like a nervous tic touch her hair a lot. But her body language, even at that point, exponentially got more uncomfortable. And she began to have a shaky voice. Her lip was quivering. Her chin was as well. And then she's going to turn to her face for a second and began to have her voice break. At which point Emil Bove kind of holds his hands up for a second, just over - almost like a, I - I'm not sure what's just happened in this moment and she begins to sort of cry. And then he says, do you need a minute. And she turns her whole body away. And I remember Trump's over here. The jury's over here and she's turning her body towards the jury to realize they can still see her. And she's turning even more to contort herself. At which point she says, yes, I do. And she's visibly crying now. And there's a tissue box behind her. There's a bailiff next to her. And the courtroom is kind of trying to figure out in this moment, what was the initial trigger? Now there's the two schools of thought, either some would say she must have understood the weight of her testimony. Others can say, do you know - when you're talking to the prosecution and you're at the prosecution's witness, they're friendly to you. They are - they have prepped you in some way, not to lie, but to prep you to prepare you for this moment. They've talked to you through your nerves. So they're kind of your friendly person. When the defense counsel gets up to then cross-examine you and their client is Donald Trump, a man that you've called a master communicator, somebody that you are probably well afraid of their ability to make sure that someone knows your full history. I think the weight of the combination was what may have combined to have her be overwhelmed. COOPER: You should point out though, that she's not a prosecution witness or do you believe she's a prosecution witness wholeheartedly? She's there under subpoena. COATES: Yes. COOPER: A lot of the words she was using to describe her reactions, I thought were conservative. She used the word concerned. When the - what was her response when she first got The Washington Post reporter? COATES: Concerned, yes. COOPER: She said, oh, I was concerned. It's a little bit more than concerned, but that was the word she was using. I thought that's a conservative word to use. COATES: You're right to say it. I mean, I think people have the impression every time a witness goes on the stand that you're either going to be the attack dog and bulldog or you're going to be the shrinking violet. Every witness has a role to play, and sometimes it's just to move the story along and bridge the gap between the catch-and- kill and the campaign. COOPER: I mean, this ... COATES: That was her role. COOPER: This is a multi - I mean, there's a lot of emotion in her relationship and you know this better than anybody, Alyssa, with her emotion - in her relationship with Donald Trump. This is a man who - she was four years out of college when she started working for the Trump organization. ALYSSA FARAH GRIFFIN, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: Right. What you have to understand about Hope Hicks, and having had some time to digest this testimony, there is nowhere on the planet she wanted to be less than where she was today. She did not want to be testifying against a boss that she clearly still holds in very high regard. She's still incredibly close with his family. She - I mean, in listening to her answers and reading the transcript back, I think she was as gracious as she could be about him, as effusive as she could be, while still being honest and truthful about the facts. So this kind of - the stark moment was when she acknowledged that he basically said it's better that it didn't happen during the campaign. That's probably the hardest piece of evidence she gave against Donald Trump, but there was a ton in there for the defense, and I think that was by design. And the fact that Trump acknowledged her when she left was sort of this, she did well by Donald Trump. COOPER: I think it's easy for people who have never testified in a trial to say, oh, she was crying because of the statement she made, and then she realized the impact of that statement. I mean, I've testified in a trial of a stalker against me, and I found myself choking up on the stand totally unexpectedly like as much as you are prepared to testify at a trial, it's - when you're sitting there and there's a jury there and it's personal stuff, it's very hard. I mean, Arthur, you must see this all the time. ARTHUR AIDALA, NEW YORK CRIMINAL DEFENSE ATTORNEY: Yes. I was a witness recently and it was weird, it was against a client. But to your point, as much as with public speaking, right, so how can Anderson Cooper get nervous being a public speaker in a courtroom? But ... COOPER: It's a completely different situation. AIDALA: Correct. Absolutely. [20:10:02] When you raise your right-hand - but from a legal point of view, and I don't know if this is true or not, there is nothing stopping Trump's attorneys to having spoken to Hope Hicks. In other words, she's under subpoena from the prosecutor's office, but it's absolutely appropriate for them to call her up and say, hey, I'm Susan Necheles, you know who I am. Can I talk to you about your testimony? That's nothing - that's not unethical, that's not improper. I don't know if that happened or not, but she clearly was not there to hurt Donald Trump. She was there to do what she had to do. And yet, there is the weight of the world on you when you're - and the whole world is watching. COOPER: Yes. COATES: Every time she talked, every time she talked, you heard like typing ... COOPER: Well, that's the thing. COATES: ... like maniacal typing from journalists. COOPER: That's the thing that - it's so interesting, I'm so glad I was there, and I'm so glad that we have three people who - all of us were there today, because what you don't see until you're sitting in that room or what you don't hear, you don't realize, is we see this on television and we think it's all like we see on television of everybody knows their jobs, but there is emotion there, there is a feeling in the room, and that feeling ebbs and flows. And when the prosecutor stood up, nobody knew who was going to be called today. And the first early testimony was kind of procedural and not particular - I can understand why some people might fall asleep in the room. And suddenly the prosecutor stood up and just very matter- of-factly said, next witness is Hope Hicks. There was a - instantly, like an invasion of cicadas in the room, you heard this. You heard an entire gallery full of people, everybody with their laptops, because you're not allowed to have your phone out, suddenly doing this. And it was this - it was incredible and every time there was something significantly - significant that she said during her testimony, you could tell what was significant by the crescendo of this. AIDALA: And I - let me just say from the ... COATES: And so could she. COOPER: Yes. COATES: So could she. COOPER: Yes. Yes. (CROSSTALK) AIDALA: But from a lawyer's point of view, when you're sitting there, just because of what is ... COOPER: Can you hear that? AIDALA: ... a hundred percent, and so sometimes, you're like, what'd I missed? COOPER: Right. AIDALA: I'm sitting there like, why'd he type it? It sounded like a benign answer. COOPER: Because somebody - there was some reporter in the room, I'm not sure who it was - who said, I think said that there was an audible gasp. I didn't hear that in the courtroom, I was - I think I was sitting behind the reporter who said that. ABBY PHILLIP, CNN ANCHOR, "NEWSNIGHT WITH ABBY PHILLIP": Yes, it was a reporter ... COOPER: It was in the overflow room. PHILLIP: In the overflow room ... COOPER: Okay, because there were civilians in the overflow room. PHILLIP: ... where there were regular people ... COOPER: Okay. PHILLIP: ... in the overflow room. COOPER: It was not a gasp ... (CROSSTALK) COOPER: It was not a gasp (INAUDIBLE) ... AIDALA: Regular people. PHILLIP: Ordinary people. COOPER: Right. There wasn't a gasp inside the courtroom, but what there was, was, I mean, it was incredible. Suddenly everyone was - and when she walked in, I mean, it was just ... UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Dead silent. COOPER: Yeah. PHILLIP: I mean, one of the other things about Hope Hicks, I cannot get out of my head. She has not talked to Donald Trump in two years. COOPER: Yes, 2022 she said was the last time. PHILLIP: It's not - and with Trump people, you have to get used to having multiple things in your brain at the same time. It's a complicated relationship. It doesn't mean that they hate each other or anything like that, but she has not talked to this man in two years, and there she is, sitting in front of him in a courtroom. I also think about all the other times that we've heard about Hope Hicks or seen her, she provided testimony to the January 6th committee, behind closed doors, in a deposition room. We saw the video of it, but she was not before the world, really. She testified in the Mueller investigation, not before the world. There were so many times when Hope Hicks was at the center of these incredible dramas in Trump world, but never like this. That is so different for her personally, but also for their relationship. And you also think about, in the January 6th context, the parts of her - the evidence that they presented in the hearing that came from her, where she was afraid about her livelihood after January 6th happened. Things happened between them that they - it sounds like they probably haven't really dealt with. And she - this is yet another thing that she's going to have to once again deal with Donald Trump about at some point. COOPER: Kaitlan? KAITLAN COLLINS, CNN ANCHOR, THE SOURCE: Well, I think there's a reason that they haven't spoken in those two years. That period that she said today of why that was, that was when the congressional hearings were happening. PHILLIP: Yes. COLLINS: That's when we found out that she had spoken to them and you got to actually hear her testimony to them, and you got to read her text. And her text on January 6th were really critical of Trump, saying that he was wiping away everything that they had done. She obviously was in the White House, left, and returned and she was also saying that people who didn't have jobs lined up were now going to be labeled domestic terrorists. They weren't going to be able to get jobs. It caused a huge break with her and with Ivanka Trump. She doesn't have a good relationship with the Trump family anymore. I don't think they ... COOPER: And by the way, she started working for the Trump family through Ivanka Trump. COLLINS: Through Ivanka Trump. COOPER: That was the initial entry. COLLINS: Well, when she came back to ... GRIFFIN: Yes, that's - she's right after January 6th, they did. COLLINS: When she came back to the White House, she worked - she reported to Jared Kushner. And so she was like a daughter to Donald Trump. I mean, the fact that they haven't spoken in two years is incredibly significant. [20:15:01] She's not coming back to help with his campaign. And I think also, when we talk about what her reaction was in the room, she hasn't seen him in two years. She hasn't been in the same room as him. I don't think it's that weird that she didn't look at him. I mean, you'd have to really kind of crane your neck to look over, because he's seated to the right of the witness. But it speaks to the break in their relationship, that the first time that they are reunited is in a criminal trial. COATES: You know what was interesting? GRIFFIN: Can I ... COATES: I'm sorry, but I was looking when she started crying. My - maybe I'm nosy, I am, but I immediately wanted to see what Trump would do. And it was that moment when the security sort of cleared away, and I had a clear shot of Donald Trump's face, the side of his profile. And we looked over, because she then left the stand to walk away from him, kind of adjusting her hair almost as a shield. And she walks over, walks behind him, doesn't make eye contact, but his face is one of concern. His eyebrows were sort of raised towards her, as you would look at somebody, concerned as if to ask, are you okay. And I thought in that moment, it was an interesting moment, given that it had been two years. He didn't seem like he was looking like almost incredulous that she would have the audacity to have emotion. He seemed as if this was someone he was concerned about in that moment. COOPER: Yes. GRIFFIN: I was just going to say, everyone in Trump world is expendable with, I would say, Hope Hicks is among the few exceptions. He always had genuine affection for her. I think that seeing her in this position, being reminded of the relationship that broke, I think is very different than virtually any other person who he could easily throw under the bus. There was a real closeness in that relationship. COOPER: We got to take a quick break. There's something else I want to talk about that really kind of really stunned me in the courtroom today. And also, we'll talk about Hope Hicks' testimony about the Access Hollywood tape coming out before the 2016 election. What candidate Trump told me at the time and what the prosecution hopes to gain from bringing it into their case. Plus, a jury consultant joins us with his take on what jurors made of Hope Hicks on the stand. (COMMERCIAL BREAK) [20:20:41] COOPER: In court today, as part of the prosecution's attempt to show then candidate Trump's motivation for paying off Stormy Daniels, Hope Hicks was asked to describe the campaign damage control when news of the Access Hollywood tape first broke, followed by the tape itself. It happened shortly before the presidential debate. It was the second presidential debate. I co-moderated it with ABC's Martha Raddatz. That was back in October of 2016. During debate prep, the Access Hollywood tape occurred on a Friday. The debate was on a Sunday. When the Access Hollywood tape came out for our debate prep, it completely changed the way we approached this debate. And obviously the first question of the debate became about the Access Hollywood tape. Take a look. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) COOPER: We received a lot of questions online, Mr. Trump, about the tape that was released on Friday. As you could imagine, you called what you said locker room banter. You described kissing women without consent, grabbing their genitals. That is sexual assault. You bragged that you have sexual assaulted women. Do you understand that? DONALD TRUMP, FORMER PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: No, I didn't say that at all. I don't think you understood what was said. This was locker room talk. I'm not proud of it. I apologize to my family. I apologize to the American people. Certainly, I'm not proud of it. But this is locker room talk. COOPER: Just for the record, though, are you saying that what you said on that bus eleven years ago that you did not actually kiss women without consent or grope women without consent. TRUMP: I have great respect for women. Nobody has more respect for women than I do. COOPER: So, for the record, you're saying you never did that? TRUMP: I've said things that - frankly you hear these things are said. And I was embarrassed by it. But I have tremendous respect for women. COOPER: Have you ever done those things ... TRUMP: And women have respect for me. And I will tell you, no, I have not. (END VIDEO CLIP) COOPER: I should point, this was a town hall debate, that was the format. So there was actually an audience question, which began the debate. And then as soon as, I was able to ask question, that was the first question for me, the moderator. Back now with the panel starting with Kara Scannell who's on transcript duty tonight. Let me just jump in. One thing that really stood out to me today is just how alone Donald Trump is in that room. I mean, for a guy who is surrounded by people all the time, he walks in, there's no - there was - I mean, I know Eric Trump was there one day, I think it was last week. There's no family with him. Boris Epshteyn was with him, but sitting two rows back. He had two Secret Service agents, I think, sitting behind him. But they were not in control of that room. The court officers were very much in control of that room, and it's the court officers who are behind - directly behind him and around him and control everything in that room. SCANNELL: Yes. I mean, those court officers are protecting that walkway that separates where all of us are sitting and Donald Trump. And the Secret Service, they're seated with their earpieces, but it's the security officers of that court that are really running things. It always strikes me, every time they have a sidebar at the bench, how Donald Trump is sitting by himself at the defense table. COOPER: Yes, it's stunning to see. SCANNELL: It really just gives this sense of loneliness. COOPER: And he's sort of slumped over sometimes with his legs sticking out and legs crossed. He's just this - and when you see him from behind he's got sort of that distinctive haircut and you'd see him from - it's like watching - I mean, the thing that came to mind was like watching later day Elvis in Vegas, like, from the back. He's just this guy with his, like, duckbill haircut sitting there. It's fascinating. SCANNELL: Yes. And there's nothing he can do. So he - the most he does is send notes to his lawyers and then shift in his chair. But he really, at times, amongst some reporters, we joke he looks like a potted plant because he can't do anything and he's not really reacting in any way. AIDALA: So, to that point, when we tried the Weinstein case and that same situation that you're talking about, the sidebar, and the defendant is there all alone, and the jurors just - and look, as a good defense - any good defense attorney does, like, you tell your client, they are watching your every move. And what - Harvey started writing a movie, legitimately. I'm not joking. I mean, it was - we were there for, I don't know, four to six weeks. And so he just had this binder. And so he just - the whole time he was writing and it wasn't about the case. COOPER: Well, let me ask you about the ... AIDALA: Though he was, like, writing a movie while we were sitting there. COOPER: ... the Weinstein case came up before the jury came in the room today in the early - in the morning. Todd Blanche actually brought up the Weinstein case. He was - Todd Blanche was trying to get some evidence that the prosecution wanted in. [20:25:03] He was trying to get it not allowed in. And he referenced the Weinstein ruling to Judge Merchan, sort of saying we think you should reconsider this in light of the Weinstein ruling. And Judge Merchan said to Todd Blanche, I've looked at that ruling. They didn't make any new law. I've considered all the underlying laws involved here and I'm sticking with my ruling. But it was interesting that that - you were - you defended Harvey Weinstein in that case, that it was brought into the courtroom today. AIDALA: Well, it's accurate when Judge Merchan said the court of appeals did not make any new law. The person who tried to make new law was the trial judge, by allowing in all this evidence that should not have been allowed in, based on over a hundred years of precedent. So I knew the whole time when the Weinstein case was pending and then when it came out, that Judge Merchan was going to study that. And he did, obviously. And look, it's a balancing test. The bottom line is, it's in the discretion of the trial judge as to whether, if the defendant testifies, what evidence would come in is probative of a particular issue, a material issue in the case. And whether that probative value outweighs the prejudice to the defendant. There's obviously going to be some prejudice to the defendant, because you're bringing up another bad act. But it's a balancing test and I don't think Judge Merchan's ruling was - even before the court of appeals came down with the Weinstein ruling - was so out of control. I think it was (INAUDIBLE) ... COOPER: Well, that's interesting. The one thing is, again, from the first time I've been in the courtroom to actually observe this judge. And having heard everything that the former president has said about this judge, I mean, I'd be interested to hear from Laura, you've been in front of a lot of judges. I was surprised, you know, given what Donald Trump has said about how crazy he is, and how - I mean, he listened to everything - every argument Todd Blanche made about what evidence, what each piece of evidence he didn't want submitted. He queried the prosecution of, well, why do you want this. And he basically split it down the middle on many things. Many - he would agree with the defense not to allow certain things in there that the prosecution wanted, and he would get them to strike other things and not submit the full piece of evidence. COATES: In terms of how he appeared in the courtroom, I mean, a good judge presiding over a case does not think they're the prosecutor or the defense or the witness or anyone else. They're almost camouflaged. Their job is only to be involved when they are invited into the conversation through the objection process. And when that would happen, if there was an objection, he wouldn't make a big deal. He would just simply overruled. (INAUDIBLE) ... COOPER: I really wish there were cameras in this courtroom ... COATES: Yes. COOPER: ... so everybody could see just how this - I mean, don't you agree? SCANNELL: Yes. I think it's important to understand from the public the testimony coming in, the judge, how he's handling this, because there have been different judges handling a lot of Trump's civil cases, and there - you do get a sense of how they handle it. Judge Merchan is very even-keeled, and they're following the rules that he set out. He said no speaking objections. So everyone is played by the rules. That's why you don't hear a lot of this extraneous or inflammatory argument. No one is campaigning from the podium. He's really got this trial under control and is keeping it moving. COLLINS: He's also made a lot of good-faith efforts to make sure Trump knows fully what he - what's happening and to keep him apprised, including when that moment last night that we were talking about where Trump said that he could not testify because of the gag order. Notice - I don't think it was taken live on any of the networks, but Trump, before he entered the courtroom today, clarified that the gag order - he said it prevented him from speaking about the case but not testifying. And then he walks in that courtroom seconds later, and the judge goes out of his way to say, by the way - which the judge has never commented on anything Donald Trump has said outside of that courtroom except for in the gag order violation hearing. And he said, by the way, you can testify despite this gag order. COOPER: But he did it in a way that was really fascinating to me, because that was right in the morning before the jury came in, before anybody came in. He said, by the way, I think there's been - maybe a misunderstanding - I'm paraphrasing - I think there's been a misunderstanding. I just want to make sure your client knows that it is absolutely his right, he can testify, nothing in the gag order - and he went on in a very sort of pleasant way. It was just - I thought it was a very interesting way. COLLINS: He says good morning to Mr. Trump every morning. COOPER: Yes. Yes. COLLINS: I mean, he - and good afternoon, as Kara noted. I mean, he is very - he's not bending over backwards, I wouldn't say. He's not - he doesn't seem effusive or anything, but he's really polite to Donald Trump and very professional. PHILLIP: Trump also attacked him again today, saying that he was trying to introduce salacious things into the hearings. I mean, I don't really know what he was referring to, but Trump is going to continue to attack this judge no matter what. And Judge Merchan is, it seems to me, very aware of Trump trying to use him as a foil and is trying to not give him reason to do that. It seems to me both from a - this is a case that's being watched for the whole country, but even from a legal perspective, the idea that a defendant might not know - I mean, whether Trump was lying or not, willfully lying or not - the idea that he might not know that he could testify makes sense to me that the judge would want to make sure that he understands he's got the same rights everybody else does to testify if he wants to. [20:30:10] COATES: I mean, I think Trump was like, he knows there's the testimony and then there's I'm going to testify in front of the cameras on the record. What he was doing was trying to testify in front of the camera about things. But the judge gave him a heck of a ruling today at the end just to ask him, there was a Sandoval hearing, a fancy way of saying, I'm going to put you on notice for anything I intend to bring up and cross examine you want, if and if you testify. One of those things they wanted to add on was the recent contempt gag order violations. They wanted to say, Judge, we want this jury to know about what you have ruled recently on the nine of the 10 things. And this judge listened to Todd Blanche, who said, Your Honor, this would be hugely prejudicial, these jurors come in every single day, they look at you for the reasons you articulated, Anderson, composed and charge the courtroom, somebody who they're respecting, you're there every single day, and you're going to give them the news that you don't like him all of a sudden, he said, I agree. It's (inaudible). ARTHUR AIDALA, NEW YORK CRIMINAL DEFENSE ATTORNEY: It's worse than you know, like, if you've already convicted him of crimes. COATES: No. AIDALA: It's even more -- no, and that was the total right ruling and just, Anderson, of the three cases with the -- with judges, the federal case with E. Jean Carroll, the attorney general in New York case, and this case, by far, he is getting the best trial, the most fair trial with Judge Merchan. ANDERSON COOPER, CNN ANCHOR: And I got to say, just watching the jury today, I mean, they are paying attention. I've testified in front of juries and looked at the, like, two jurors, and some of them looked like they just did not want to be there and weren't even paying attention and it's really deflating when you're testifying to it. But they -- all of them were watching and paying close attention. Some taking notes as fast -- KAITLAN COLLINS, CNN ANCHOR, THE SOURCE: Sorry, you're not a former president. KARA SCANNELL, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Even during the computer forensics. COOPER: Yes, exactly. Stay with us. Coming up more on the impact of Hope Hicks' testimony, jury consultant joins us to discuss her credibility as a witness and how the jury might interpret her cry. We'll be right back. (COMMERCIAL BREAK) [20:35:58] COOPER: Want to talk more about what was probably the most memorable moment from today's testimony. Hope Hicks, the top aide to candidate and then President Trump crying right after the prosecution finished and justice cross examination began even before her testimony began, she looked visibly uncomfortable when she came into the witness box in the morning telling the court, quote, "I'm really nervous." Joining us to talk about the impact of our testimony is Renato Stabile an attorney as well as a jury and trial consultant. I'm wondering what you make of how Hope Hicks did particularly the -- her crying, how that might have played with the jury. RENATO STABILE, JURY AND TRIAL CONSULTANT: Yes. Look, I mean, it's never good for an attorney when the witness starts to cry. But I don't think a Emil Bove really did anything. I mean, she's under a lot of pressure, she's under a lot of stress, it was just a natural moment. It wasn't something that was elicited because of any questioning. So, I don't think it's really going to have a big impact on anything. COOPER: If a witness cries versus a defendant, it's probably a very different thing. STABILE: Yes, I mean, depending. I mean, some defendants do break down and cry. You know, Kyle Rittenhouse, for example, took the stand and he was very emotional. And that obviously had a major impact on the jury. I mean, I don't think you're going to see Donald Trump taking the stand and crying necessarily. But I think people sympathize with Hope Hicks. I think she came across very credible. I thought that was a very natural moment for her. And it wasn't contrived at all. And it was just the pressure of the moment. AIDALA: Renato, why do you think it's a problem if a defense attorney cross examines a prosecution witness and brings them to tears? STABILE: Because you look like a bully, right? AIDALA: How about you caught them in so many lies that they break it down on the stand? STABILE: Well, you know -- AIDALA: You're breaking their constitutions. STABILE: -- it depends on who -- AIDALA: Taking them out. UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Don't make him cry right now. STABILE: Do you want to go bulldog on Hope Hicks? No, of course not. If it's somebody appropriate, right, maybe a David Pecker. Michael Cohen, if he starts crying, fine, that'll be totally -- I mean, they would love that. But you know, you have to pick your moments. And a witness like Hope Hicks, who obviously she's there under subpoena, she doesn't want to be there. She's being kind of forced to be there. You can't go after Hope Hicks. COOPER: It's also very interesting, you know, you had talked about strategies of defense attorneys and prosecutors about when they put a witness on right before the weekend. Who do you put on so that -- you know, do you put on somebody that you want the jury to think about all weekend? I mean, the jury has a lot to think about this weekend. I mean, they -- AIDALA: Well, here's a relatively short witness. My point was yesterday, hypothetically, let's just say they did all direct today and a little bit of a cross. I mean, and so there's been plenty of times where I have tapped and talked about being in the theater at the end of the day on a Friday, or at the end of the day, in any day to give me overnight to prepare my cross examination for the next morning. The biggest tool the prosecutor has in their toolbox is the element of surprise. Most of the time, I don't know what their witnesses going to say, exactly. Maybe I have some grand jury minutes. But you know, it's different when they're on the stand. So if you could get overnight or over a weekend, but here, she kind of fang (ph) it out. And I think it probably was good for the prosecution the way it left off and they went into the weekend the way they did. COATES: Wasn't there a missed opportunity in your mind that -- I mean, I -- there -- obviously you never want to ask a question that you don't know the answer to. But I was surprised that the defense counsel did not move away, did not get insight as to why she was emotional. It could have gone one of two directions. It could have endeared him to the jury, because he's now concerned that she just had to leave the courtroom because she was overwhelmed. And then the other side whether there could have been maybe she wouldn't have been favorable as in, you know what, I really don't want to be here, I respect him so much. I just thought I -- this is the last place I want to be. It was like just out there for the jury to speculate as to what happened. STABILE: Yes, you're right. I mean, I think the problem was he didn't know what she was going to say. And you're absolutely right. You never want to ask a question that you don't know the answer to. But look, I think she was really a mixed bag. I don't think she was totally credible. She didn't seem to have an agenda for either side. But there were good things for the prosecution. There were good things for the defense. Net-net, I think she's better for the defense. [20:40:01] AIDALA: Yes. Because she made Michael Cohen sound like a schmuck. And Anderson, you know, it's one thing to have a cooperator on the stand who's got some kind of history, some kind of baggage. But it's another thing where every prosecution witness so far has thrown Michael Cohen under the bus. And to be able to stand up in summation and be like, you don't have to trust me, in my opinion. But Peter (ph) said this, that one said this, Hope said this, these are their witnesses. These are no witnesses. These are (inaudible) witnesses. PHILLIP: But I will say that she made Michael Cohen sound like a schmuck was good for the prosecution. She said, there's no way Michael Cohen would have, out of the goodness of his heart, done this. It had to have been done because he was doing it for his boss with his -- I mean, that was the strong implication in that piece of testimony, which I think, Michael -- she was clear, he's -- he is not a reliable person, he's not a nice person, not a good person, but he would not do this on his own. COLLINS: Well, her key line was, you know, he liked to call himself a fixer. That was because he broke it first and then he had to go fix it. AIDALA: That was a grant (ph). COLLINS: That was a damaging line to him. But the one thing -- the point that she made about the Trump organization and how it ran, I was thinking of 2016 versus 2024 and what this campaign looks like now, it was really just her. She said that -- she was describing the Trump Organization, everyone in a sense reports to Donald Trump that it was run like a small family business. I mean, she drew a lot of direct lines to Donald Trump himself, which I think was notable compared to what it looks like now but saying he was also involved in everything that happened. COOPER: Right. I mean, in fact, that was in the early part of the morning testimony. And she went out of her way to be very complimentary about he's a great businessman, and you know, great marketer, nobody better knows exactly what he wants to say. And she would run everything through him. And he would just be the one kind of leading the way. But she described the organization as, you know, this great business, you know, doing -- huge business, great business, but run like a family organization. I mean, it was a tiny organization. I mean, she's saying it's a great business, but it was basically Donald Trump running this whole thing. ALYSSA FARAH GRIFFIN, FORMER TRUMP W.H. COMMUNICATIONS DIRECTOR: But you do have to wonder, I'm saying if you're the jury, and you've been hearing this constant just salacious things about this man where he sounds like a bit of a pig, the affairs, the, you know, the innuendo there, and you have this buttoned up woman talking about him, really praising him with genuine affection, with a level of emotion, showing gratitude for having kind of brought her up in her career, talking about him with his glowing praise, I think that that's incredibly helpful for the defense. I think they're going to lean into that, the story about Melania Trump. And you know, he didn't want to embarrass his family, he wanted to make his family proud. I don't personally by any of that, but I think a lot of the jurors are going to, oh, she actually sounds better. COLLINS: Well, he's scared of Melania Trump. So, I think it's more of that than being terrorist (ph). GRIFFIN: But it's a technical matter. Allegedly, she gets all her news on her phone. So I'm not sure this paper would have mattered that much. But it was helpful. PHILLIP: (Inaudible) outside of the hotel room, no less. I agree with you about just her authenticity. She's not a bitter witness. And the more I reflect on this, I think about how we're going to get to the Michael Cohen's of the world, and he's going to be aggrieved and angry, and there's a clear rift there. And he's going to actually be talking about a lot of the same things that Hope Hicks talked about. But her testimony being there without all of that baggage, where she's not coming from a place of hate, I think is actually important for the prosecution to have just to have someone there who doesn't hate Donald Trump but just is telling us from a factual perspective, here's what was going on at the time. COOPER: Renato, you want statement? STABILE: Yes, no, I totally agree that she did a pretty good job of putting on a character case for Donald Trump, which normally if you're a criminal defendant, and you do that you open the door to bad character, but because she's a prosecution witness, they can't do that. So I thought that was very effective. COOPER: Yes. STABILE: And I think the other thing, the whole wanting to keep this from Melania, from a legal perspective, that was absolutely critical. You know, that was absolutely critical, because one of the issues and we're still debating like, what's the underlying crime? Nobody seems to know, we're still thinking about that. But if this was a personal payment, as opposed to a payment in furtherance of the campaign, that is huge from a legal perspective. And I believe the law supports that it was a personal payment, quite frankly. COOPER: Renato Stabile, appreciate it. Thanks, everybody else, stay with us. Someone else is here who was inside the courtroom today. I was sitting behind her this morning and it is fascinating how she's helping bring this trial to life for Americans. The sketch artists watching her work this morning is just amazing. The king perspective from Christine Cornell next. (COMMERCIAL BREAK) [20:48:38] COOPER: And welcome back. I had the privilege of being in court today for the morning session. And one of the more fascinating things that I saw was something I did not expect at all. I was actually sitting right behind one of the incredible sketch artists today, actually both of the sketch artists who were -- actually three artists were in the room, transfixed watching their work capturing this historic trial in pastel. Christine Cornell has spent years inside New York courthouses and joins us now. I was watching you work today and it's fascinating because I mean, you start with sort of with a face or just a sketch and then over minutes you bring this this sketch to life. You're also wearing these like binoculars like a special forces. CHRISTINE CORNELL, COURTROOM SKETCH TRIAL: No, I'm not. That's Jane who wears them on her head. COOPER: But you had some sort of binocular contraction. CORNELL: I have binoculars. COOPER: Yes. CORNELL: I use them. Yes. COOPER: So what do you use those for? CORNELL: To get up close and get the detail because sometimes we're just really catching a little snippet window of, you know, to see. You know, Mr. Trump, especially through all those bodies moving. COOPER: Right. Because there's a lot of the court officers who are in the way. You can't get a full view of him all the time. CORNELL: So you want to get as much information as you can like, you know, negative time. COOPER: Do you -- what is -- what is it like drawing? I mean, every day you are studying this person's face? CORNELL: I'm getting to where I can draw them from my imagination. COOPER: Really? COLLINS: How do you choose which moment? CORNELL: I know when it's wrong. COLLINS: How do you choose which moment from the hearing to draw? CORNELL: I wish I could tell you that I had lots of choices. It's just it's -- you know, it's slim pickings. You know you see through this window, sometimes he just turns in, he's talking to his attorney and you go, oh, got to get it, you know. Sometimes you just have to stare at him, because it's going to be so fast that you have to memorize it and then drew it. [20:50:20] COOPER: Are you paying attention to the actual trial itself? CORNELL: I'm hearing it all. COOPER: Yes, of course. CORNELL: I'm hearing, I'm listening to it. But what I'm not doing is what the reporters are doing, which is putting it together and figuring out what the weight of this particular piece of evidence is. COOPER: You hear all the clicking of the reporters, does that annoy you? CORNELL: Not in the slightest. COOPER: No? CORNELL: No. AIDALA: Anderson, if I can just -- COOPER: Yes. AIDALA: -- say, this woman is a legend. I mean, I don't say that lightly. I mean, she's been around and she looks very young, but she did in the court for decades. And she has a lot of power because for a lot of lawyers, like, you only get one big case, right? And this is the thing that she's going to draw, because no cameras in the courtroom typically. And she's going to give you that moment that's going to live in your law office or your mom's living room forever. And I'm getting a kick, Anderson, actually, out of your enthusiasm. COOPER: No. I just -- CORNELL: Why? I love it. AIDALA: You're most enthusiastic, you've been in the courtroom thing. COOPER: Yes. AIDALA: And I've seen him so many times bring things to life. And as I mentioned, I have more sketches of hers in my house, because but my dad, which she sketched dozens of times and myself, and it's -- she has given -- COOPER: It was fascinating because you sit there and -- what was your colleagues name sitting next to you? AIDALA: Jane. CORNELL: Jane. COOPER: Jane. She -- I was closer to her and she had all the pastels laid out. And I was looking at all -- I mean, she had all the colors out there wasn't like sort of a how do you paint Donald Trump because there's not -- some people would think there'd be a lot of orange, but there wasn't orange. CORNELL: He's human colors, you know? He's not an unusual looking man except for there is a bright yellow that I use when I hit his hair. That is just so much fun. It's really -- yes. COOPER: His hair seems lighter these days. CORNELL: It's fading. COOPER: It's fading. CORNELL: Yes. COATES: I was going to say it's interesting because we -- in most of the country, you know, there are cameras, there are videos, there are photographers, we get one snapshot, but there is such an art that makes it so compelling, we were waiting to see your drawings and your sketches. But I wonder if you can comment on the fact that this is not happening in every courtroom or across the country, it's really an art that is going away more than -- more often than not. Tell me about why it's so important to have it in New York and have it like moments like this? CORNELL: Well, it protects the defendant. Did see -- it's a little bit of a shield, you know, the presumption of innocence. It's very hard to be stared to have a camera staring you down all the time. Having an artist come and draw you is actually kind of wonderful. I think we add a little bit of lightness to the whole thing and we also bring a lot of humanity to it. COOPER: I also love that you are first in line and -- like, it's rare artists get a lot of respect in society today. You are first in line you have the best seat in the court. I mean, yes, there's people blocking you, but as far as the gallery goes. CORNELL: It's necessary. COOPER: Yes. CORNELL: And we are the eyes, you know? COOPER: yes. CORNELL: They do need our work. COOPER: Yes, PHILLIP: I noticed that. We were just showing it. There's -- I don't know if it's yours, but there was a sketch that had Trump, but then there were the words from the "Access Hollywood" tape, kind of in the background, framing his face. I thought that was just such an interesting choice. CORNELL: Right. So you can put those elements together. PHILLIP: Yes, I mean, talk to me about making -- CORNELL: And get a little drama. PHILLIP: -- making those choices about if you're going to include words, which ones you choose and how you think through that. CORNELL: Right, right. And don't fill up the space with the wrong words. PHILLIP: Yes. CORNELL: I mean, all those sudden (ph) rights. PHILLIP: I mean, those are very, very important words. COOPER: You know, I was watching you drew this, and then all of a sudden you added in that -- the bright yellow on the eyebrows and on the hair. CORNELL: Yes, it's my friend Jane's. COOPER: Oh, that's Jane's. OK. CORNELL: That is Jane's. PHILLIP: Jane's, yes. Yes. COOPER: But -- so those lines, those yellows, were they were drawn at the end of it, like -- CORNELL: At the very end. COOPER: At the very end. CORNELL: Right, right. COOPER: I saw her draw them on. CORNELL: You kind of start with a little bit of just a linear blocking it in and then you build up from the shadow and you add lights and then the highlights are the thing that you add last. AIDALA: And then, just you know, because we've do this, so then when I call her after the appearance and I'm like, Christine, I really want that, she -- seriously, then she would sometimes, I know you've done this, you're like, Arthur, just sent me a picture yourself that you like the way you look, and then she'll fix a little bit and then she'll add a lot more detail. I'm actually paying for her to frame it and hang it to my office. CORNELL: I didn't do that. AIDALA: Yes, well, OK. All right. OK. OK. I haven't been to 14th Street to your studio and been up there and -- CORNELL: Not I. Oh, if you came to my studio then I will always work further on you. AIDALA: Yes. COOPER: But you sketch -- I mean, you sketch -- AIDALA: Not many times. COOPER: You've sketched Son of Sam, David Berkowitz, John Gotti, you've sketch -- I mean, has there been -- John Edwards -- has there been a trial that really stuck out in your mind? Or is there been a moment in a trial where what is being discussed really grabs your attention or makes you emotional? [20:55:12] CORNELL: Absolutely. You want my most poignant experiences -- COOPER: Yes, yes. CORNELL: -- ever in court? COOPER: Yes. Because I mean, you're human. You're listening to all of this and the compounded weight of that. CORNELL: OK, I'll tell you one story. COOPER: OK. CORNELL: This was from Cosby, a few years ago. And there was this young woman who was describing, you know, being 17 years old, she didn't drink, he gave her some white wines and you don't drink have some white wine, next thing, you know, she's in and out of consciousness. And she's having these sort of little flash memories, you know, which are graphic, right, head to toe, toe to toe, you know? And she started -- she's crying at this point. And she said, you remember, don't you Mr. Cosby. And that was just such a jaw dropping moment in the courtroom where the witness directly addressed the defendant -- COOPER: Yes. CORNELL: -- in such a, you know, incredible way. COOPER: Yes. Christine Cornell, such a -- CORNELL: Yes. COOPER: -- joy and honor. CORNELL: Yes, see, you ask me questions, you get it. COOPER: I love it. I want to -- I want to -- yes, I want you to draw me someday. But I don't want to do something to make you draw me. I'm too boring. We'll be back with more reaction as the book closes on week three of Donald Trump's hush money trial. (COMMERCIAL BREAK) The Source with Kaitlan Collins Aired May 03, 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] (COMMERCIAL BREAK) ANDERSON COOPER, CNN HOST, ANDERSON COOPER 360: It is just past 9 PM, here in New York, dramatic day 11 of the Trump hush money trial. Now in the books, former Trump adviser, communications director, and one-time close confidante, Hope Hicks, reunited with the former President by a prosecution subpoena. Her testimony, establishing his awareness, after he became president, of how much he politically benefited by paying for Stormy Daniels' silence, before the 2016 election. Whether her tears which followed were related to her answer on that, or just came from the accumulated tension, of being on the stand, the emotion of the moment is impossible say. Whether the day was a significant dramatic end to week three of this historic trial? That is hard to deny. Joining the panel for this hour, CNN's Senior Legal Analyst, Elie Honig. Elie, we haven't heard from you. ELIE HONIG, FORMER FEDERAL PROSECUTOR, SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NY, CNN SENIOR LEGAL ANALYST: Yes. COOPER: What stood out to you today? HONIG: Well, here we are at roughly what I assess to be about the midpoint of this trial. We're about halfway through, I think. If I'm the prosecutor, and I like to think about things this way, I'm very satisfied with certain elements in my case, but I'm also very worried about other elements. Here's what I think they have strong. Clearly, Donald Trump knew about these hush money payments. I don't think there's any real question. Clearly, he wanted the money to be paid. And it's quite clear to me, and Hope Hicks, I think solidified this today that it was for a political reason. Yes, there was a family concern too. But there also was a substantial political reason. That's the good news. The problem is there's nothing so far, in this record, as it stands now, tying Donald Trump to the accounting, behind the financing of those payments. And that's the crime. And it's starting to look increasingly like the only actual link they're going to have, showing that, yes, Donald Trump knew the way we structured these reimbursements, with all the checks, to try to make it look like legal fees, it looks like the only link is going to be Michael Cohen. And boy, I've never seen a witness take on more damage, before he stepped in the stand than Michael Cohen has taken on. ABBY PHILLIP, CNN HOST, NEWSNIGHT WITH ABBY PHILLIP: You don't think-- HONIG: Every single witness has said he's a horrible person, and he's a liar. PHILLIP: You don't think the other piece of evidence is the actual checks that Trump signed himself? HONIG: Yes, the checks help. But they don't answer all the questions. I mean, there's so many responses to that. Does he know exactly what he's paying for? Why is Michael Cohen extracting triple the amount that he paid? He paid $130,000. He gets paid back over $400,000. Why did Michael Cohen tell him? Who's going to be able to testify to that? I think the checks are helpful to the prosecution. But they don't get them to the finish line. ARTHUR AIDALA, NEW YORK CRIMINAL DEFENSE ATTORNEY: So, let me just explain how a confidentiality agreement works, in the real world, not when someone's running for president. But let's talk about a very real scenario. My phone rings. It's some dude, who cheated on his wife. And now, the woman says, I want money, or I'm telling your wife. We -- I say, you go get a lawyer. She gets a law -- so there's lawyer to lawyer, we're talking to each other. There's a written, I have them, they're like forms, that it's a confidentiality -- yes, it's a gag order, basically. And we're going to give you this amount of money, over this amount of time, and you can't say anything. And if you do, there's treble damages. So, if we give you a million, and you squeal? Now you give us $3 million. The husband doesn't write the check to her. The husband writes the check to my law firm. My law firm puts it in the escrow account. And sometimes, my legal fee is built in there. So hypothetically, if it's 100 grand, and my legal fee is $10,000, he writes a check to $110,000, to the law offices of Aidala, Bertuna & Kamins. It goes in my escrow account. $10,000 goes into my operating account. And then, I write out the check from the Aidala, Bertuna & Kamins IOR (ph) account, to her lawyer. He puts it in his escrow account. And then, he pays her. That's all ethical, legal, and there's nothing wrong with that. HONIG: I think what the prosecution is going to say, though, is the difference is that Donald Trump was running for president, and they falsified these documents in order to hide the fact that it was hush money. But again, I don't think the proof is there yet that he knew about this-- PHILLIP: Right. HONIG: --level of granular detail. AIDALA: And Abby, the fact that he signed the check. That's not the crime. The bookkeeping is the crime. PHILLIP: No, no, no, I wasn't suggesting that signing the check was the crime. But rather that it indicates that he understood that this was a repayment for the scheme that -- he was going to get $35,000 over the course of a period of time. I mean, I also think that just the idea that Trump simply could have done what you suggested, I think we wouldn't really even be dealing with the situation. [21:05:00] But Michael Cohen, took out a loan on his house, paid in advance, waited until after the election to be repaid. I mean, there was an attempt to conceal this arrangement from the public. I think that is pretty clear based on the-- COOPER: We-- PHILLIP: --just the timeline of things that happened. COOPER: We've gotten the full testimony out from the transcript. I know, Kara, you've been looking at it. What -- anything stand out? KARA SCANNELL, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Yes. I mean, I think, at the moment, if we look at 2018, this is after Michael Cohen gives The New York Times a statement, and says that he paid the $130,000 without Donald Trump knowing. And then, Hope Hicks is testifying about the next day she talks to Donald Trump, and that he's telling her about his conversation with Michael Cohen. So, what she testifies to is, this is when being questioned by the prosecutor. She said, I didn't know Michael to be an especially charitable person, or selfless person. He's the kind of person who seeks credit. The prosecutor said, did Mr. Trump say anything else about this issue when he told you that Michael made the payment? Just that he thought it was a generous thing to do, and he was appreciative of the loyalty. That's all I remember. The prosecutor says, did he say anything about the timing of the news reporting regarding? Hicks, oh, he -- yes. He wanted to know how it was playing, and just my thoughts and opinion about this story versus having the story -- a different kind of story before the campaign had Michael not made that payment. And I think Mr. Trump's opinion was that it was better to be dealing with it now, and that would have been bad to have had that story come out before the election. So, this was the last thing that Hope Hicks testified, when questioned by the prosecutor. COOPER: That was what she said before the -- right before the crime? SCANNELL: Right. This was the final thing that the prosecutors left the jury hearing her say, which was, she's saying she doesn't believe the story that Michael Cohen had advanced this money on his own. But also, saying that Trump was glad that he had to deal with this in 2018, because it would have been much worse to deal with it before the election. COOPER: Kaitlan asked the former President about the Access Hollywood tape, in the CNN Town Hall, last year. I want to play a clip of that. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) KAITLAN COLLINS, CNN HOST, THE SOURCE: There was a tape deposition of you from October in it. You defended the comments that you made on that Access Hollywood tape about being able to grab women how you want. Do you stand by those comments? DONALD TRUMP (R), FORMER U.S. PRESIDENT AND 2024 PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: I said if you're famous and rich, or whatever I said, but I said if you're a star -- you are -- and I said, women let you. I didn't say you grab -- I said women let. You know you didn't use the word. But if you look, women let you. COLLINS: You were asked in the deposition if you consider yourself to be a star and you said yes. TRUMP: People that are rich, people that are powerful -- they tend to do pretty well in a lot of different ways, OK. And you would like me to take that back. I can't take it back because it happens to be true. (END VIDEO CLIP) COLLINS: I mean, one, he said grab them, in the audio. COOPER: Right. COLLINS: Anyone can listen to it. It's not really up-- COOPER: Grab them by the private part. COLLINS: It's not up for dispute. Two, what I'm so struck by listening back to that now is the video that they played in court today for the jury to hear was Trump, his video that he put out on Twitter, after that video came out. I mean, there was that crisis moment, as Hope Hicks testified today, a hurricane was expected to make landfall that night. No one in the news, she said we don't even know where it -- where it made landfall or anything, because people were only talking about the video. COOPER: This was the bigger hurricane, I think. COLLINS: Right, much in a political sense, obviously. But Donald Trump put out that video, apologizing. And then, in your debate question, he said he was embarrassed. That is language he does not use anymore. No matter what he does, or what happens, he never says apologize. He never says that he's embarrassed. And so, it also speaks to how he has changed since 2016, and how he views himself through this political lens-- COOPER: Yes. COLLINS: --as someone who really, in his view, is untouchable. But in a deposition that wasn't taken not that long ago, he defended the comments that he made in that video. ALYSSA FARAH GRIFFIN, FORMER TRUMP WH COMMUNICATIONS DIRECTOR, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: Well, and just to underscore that moment, when this came out, I at the time was working for the Freedom Caucus. Jim Jordan was about to go to an event in Ohio with Mike Pence. And there was genuine discussion that he may not go to the event, that Pence might not show up for the event. There was basically a pause, on all fronts, even within the RNC, a debate, is this campaign even going to move forward. So, it is important to remember that context, because another bombshell like this, having come out at the time would have been incredibly significant. COOPER: Well, Hope Hicks was asked about that on the stand today. And she talked about Paul Ryan had an event in Wisconsin, that Trump was supposed to go to. And then, she said it was sort of -- the prosecution said that he turned Trump down. She said, actually, it's more nuanced. And she went on to explain that Paul Ryan kind of reorganized it, so that kind of to de-emphasize Trump, and maybe Paul Ryan wouldn't be there. And then, she says Trump decided not to go, because he was insulted, I guess. FARAH GRIFFIN: And I believe Reince Priebus got in, to try to facilitate that, so it wouldn't look like a clean break at the time. But that's accurate. COOPER: Yes. COLLINS: I mean, this was a moment where Steve Bannon loves to tell this story. But they all kind of sat around a conference table, the people that she was describing, who were there, as they were in the middle of the debate prep, when Dave Fahrenthold, from The Post, emailed them to say, hey, we've got this really embarrassing audio tape of Trump. And they kind of went around the room, and Trump asked if they thought he should drop out. And a lot of them, including Reince Priebus, said that they believed he should. Steve Bannon, I believe, as he characterizes it, was one of the only people who did not believe. But it was such a moment in the campaign, where people did genuinely think Trump may drop out of the race. [21:10:00] COOPER: Well, it was also a central moment, I will say, in the debate prep, where they were doing debate prep, at that same moment, we were doing debate prep-- FARAH GRIFFIN: Yes. COOPER: --as one of the moderators of that debate. And it suddenly, as soon as it hit, all our plans, for what the first question was going to be, and-- COLLINS: Like energy policy? COOPER: I mean, right, it all -- it all went out the window. PHILLIP: Yes. COOPER: And then there was this whole day-long drama behind-the-scenes of how do we ask it, exactly what's the wording going to be, and what's the follow-up going to be and sort of planning that all out. PHILLIP: I mean, I think that the -- what Kaitlan was saying about Trump changing the way he talks about the Access Hollywood tape, that was such a seminal moment for him politically, because he won. And had he not won, I think, obviously, everything would have changed. But the lesson that Trump learned from that, similarly from Charlottesville, when he kind of made the statements about the Charlottesville, and then he tried to walk it back. And ever since then, he's been kind of denying that he ever said, there were very fine people on both sides. Trump has learned the lesson, never to walk a thing back. COLLINS: Well-- PHILLIP: Never ever to walk a thing back. And that has become his caller card. COOPER: I also just want to point out the first 30 minutes of that debate were, I mean, I was on the stage with Martha Raddatz, and nobody knew how this was going to play out. Nobody knew. Donald Trump had held this press conference with Bill Clinton accusers. He had brought them to the debate hall. They both walked out there. They didn't shake hands. They didn't shake hands with the moderators. The tension, the molecules of the air on that set, were charged in that room. And I mean, I've done other debates before. Never a Committee of the Presidential Debate, but primary debates. I've never experienced a 20 minutes, outside of a combat zone that was so charged and just almost, I mean, anything could have, you know, and he started following her around on stage. I mean, the whole thing was, it was just stunning to be a part of. PHILLIP: Yes. I mean, I remember. I mean, I was covering Hillary Clinton at the time. The fact that he brought Bill Clinton's accusers, to that debate, created this incredible circus atmosphere. But it also made people believe that he was just going to kind of bulldoze through this moment. I think it was kind of a mixed bag on the debate stage. But it was -- it really was because ultimately, the end result of all of this, probably because there was not another woman or accuser who came forward, the end result of all of this was that the Access Hollywood tape didn't sink him. And so, he is totally emboldened by that experience, and every other experience that he's had subsequently, that has left him empowered after these moments that would have killed anybody else's-- COOPER: Yes. COLLINS: But it's a-- PHILLIP: --political career. COLLINS: It's a revisionist history, where he, you know, see how he talked about that then, and then look at how he was talking about it-- PHILLIP: Yes. COLLINS: --one year ago. He's saying, that's actually not what I said. Well, you can hear him. The audio tape, they played yesterday, that Michael Cohen surreptitiously taped, of him and Donald Trump discussing it. Trump posted today that they cut off part of it that was actually very positive for him. There's no evidence of that. His attorneys did not argue that in court, Elie, as you know. HONIG: Right. COLLINS: And it was just a moment, where he kind of tries to seek to reframe things, even when there is there -- document evidence, if there is an audio tape. He tries to basically reframe things. And the question is how that plays in an actual courtroom. COOPER: They argued this in front of the judge today, about the evidence of the chain of custody, of that tape, and also that the prosecution is saying that a call came in, which is what sort of cut off that call, and the defense is trying to raise questions about, well, what's the evidence that a call came in, and how do you determine that. HONIG: Every defendant in history, who's been caught on tape, always maintains that as soon as that tape ended, something great for them happened right after it. Every time. PHILLIP: Well it's worth noting they still got-- (CROSSTALK) AIDALA: Isn't that true? That's -- hey hold on. That's not true? COOPER: Yes. AIDALA: I thought that was true. COOPER: Much more ahead. David Fahrenthold, Kaitlan just mentioned, on the Access Hollywood story that he himself broke, he's joining us next. The question of whether the former President has, again violated his gag order. We'll show you what he posted on social media last night, and we'll get a former federal judge's take on that as well. And later, given all the Trump-world turmoil that Hope Hicks recounted today, and that we just talked about, some perspective on how despite all that he's still managed to become president, and could be again. Former Republican congressman and January 6 committee member, Adam Kinzinger, joins us as well. [21:15:00] (COMMERCIAL BREAK) COOPER: We were talking earlier about Judge Merchan, and his demeanor in court, which he's maintained despite significant challenges, you could say, surrounding this trial, including a defendant with his own social network. He's already held him in criminal contempt for violating his gag order, and is still weighing a second batch of alleged violations. And now, there's more. Last night, defendant Trump posted this clip, from Steve Bannon's podcast, during which Andrew Giuliani attacked the judge's daughter. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) ANDREW GIULIANI, REAL AMERICA'S VOICE NEWS: The gag order that he is violating, that according to the judge that Donald Trump is violating, is just pointing out the fact that the judge's daughter has profited to the tune of $90 million, that's right, over $90 million from Adam Schiff, Kamala Harris and other leftists. (END VIDEO CLIP) COOPER: Joining the panel is former federal judge Shira Scheindlin. Do you think Judge Merchan would or should react to Trump posting that video? SHIRA SCHEINDLIN, FORMER U.S. DISTRICT COURT JUDGE: Well, it is another attack on the judge's daughter, and the judge has said clearly that's off limits. [21:20:00] So, I think, as usual, Trump is going right up to the line, and maybe just over that line. Some days, you sort of think he's baiting the judge and daring him to put him in jail. Sometimes, you wonder if he wants that to help him with his victimhood argument. I really wonder about that. COOPER: Yes. PHILLIP: It almost seems like he wants to show that the gag order doesn't have an impact on him at all. I mean, Trump just keeps -- it's like he's like a toddler. It's like you -- he keeps pushing back on the restraint. AIDALA: You know what, I'm going to call little foul on Donald Trump. He was -- he was in front of Judge Lewis Kaplan. You could take the Fifth, Your Honor. Who was so harsh, so harsh on him and his attorneys, so harsh. He was in front of Judge Engoron, who was so harsh on him and his attorneys. Merchan is not even in the league of those other two guys. He knows that this judge is letting his lawyers try their case, letting them do aggressive cross-examinations, letting them do their things. So, he knows what he's saying because he now has a basis of comparison, between two other judges, who kicked his butt-- SCHEINDLIN: Yes. AIDALA: --and kicked his lawyers' butts. COOPER: Well it's also interesting to hear, Judge Merchan, this morning, before the jury came in, talking to Donald Trump, and through Todd Blanche, saying, I think your client has a misunderstanding, he absolutely has every right to testify, addressing the comments that Trump had made about, oh, I am not allowed to testify, because of this gag order, which is just patently false and just ridiculous. And I mean, nobody listening to Judge Merchan calmly and politely sort of informing Donald Trump, reminding of his rights. I mean, just no one sitting there, listening to that would, would really believe that this guy is this rabid animal, going after him. SCHEINDLIN: No. And I think -- I think they were both acting to some extent. Trump knew darn well that he was permitted to testify. That was an act. And the judge carefully explaining it to him knew that he already knew it. So both of them were making good record, so to speak, for their positions. But it was all known. COLLINS: The problem with that is also, no one in that room thinks that. But that's a very limited amount of people. COOPER: Yes. COLLINS: Most of them reporters, 12 of them witnesses. There's a whole atmosphere out there that does believe this judge is biased against Donald Trump, because he tells him that, and conservative media and his allies tell them that. And they point to I think, like 30 bucks that the judge donated to Democrats, at some point. And so, that is something that they feel like they've been effective, in using that, and putting that out there. And as always, with Donald Trump, he doesn't care what's actually real. It's the perception of it. FARAH GRIFFIN: And it-- SCHEINDLIN: Well, and what I think is that those people will never change their mind anyway. Doesn't matter what the truth is, they've made up their mind, so. HONIG: If I could use Judge Scheindlin, picking up on Kaitlan's point, Judge Merchan did donate a few -- $35-- SCHEINDLIN: Yes. HONIG: --to anti-Trump. If you had a defendant in front of you, Chris Jones, and you had donated $35 to defeat Chris Jones for office a few years ago, would you recuse yourself? SCHEINDLIN: The real answer to, is I would never have donated $35. HONIG: OK. Right, no, that's a good point. You're not supposed to do that. SCHEINDLIN: You're not supposed to, so. HONIG: But if you had broken that rule, and donated $35 to defeat Chris Jones. And now Chris Jones' liberty is at stake in front of you. Would you have recused yourself? SCHEINDLIN: I have said on record that I thought there was enough there that might have warranted a recusal. And that was one of the facts. That plus other reasons, I thought he should do it. And I-- COLLINS: The Trump's team loved that -- Trump's team loved that you said that. And you said that on my show. And that was something they circulated and pushed out there. Because they believed it was -- I mean, they rarely see a retired judge, helping make their case. And they seized on that, really. SCHEINDLIN: I know. But I wasn't helping anybody. I call it-- FARAH GRIFFIN: Yes. COLLINS: It's just calling (ph). SCHEINDLIN: --I call it as I see it. HONIG: And can I just follow up on that? There is an important distinction between a judge having a conflict and a judge being a good or lousy judge. I mean, I happen to think Judge Merchan is doing an extraordinary job of managing this case-- SCHEINDLIN: Yes. HONIG: --of running it, of giving a fair trial. I also think he should have recused. SCHEINDLIN: Right. HONIG: I agree with Judge Scheindlin on that. But those are two separate issues. It's one is not an answer to the other. AIDALA: And I agree. I agree with you. And I agree that he should have recused himself. But Anderson, he did do the right thing. He went to the Committee on the Judiciary, the State of New York, and he said, I made this donation. And my daughter works here. Can I -- I was assigned this case. Can I still handle the case? And that committee gave him the green light. COOPER: Judge Scheindlin, I mean, based on what you know about Hope Hicks' testimony, and the emotion she showed, I mean, how impactful do you think she is? SCHEINDLIN: I think a show of emotion by a witness is very impactful on a jury. But what the jury decides is, was it an act? Or was it genuine? COOPER: Yes. SCHEINDLIN: And that's a big question, so. COOPER: And also, what does the emotion mean? Because it's not necessarily -- I mean, it's open to interpretation, isn't it? SCHEINDLIN: True. But I think the first question is, is it real? Is it genuine? Because some witnesses put on a show, when they're just sort of acting at the end of the testimony, they kind of break down and hunch over. But if the jury thinks it's real, I think they have a lot of sympathy for that, and they try to figure out what it means. [21:25:00] And I felt what it meant here is that she had once liked this guy. She had once been close to Trump. And it was hard for her to realize that she was being a witness against him. I think it really hurt her. And so, that makes her a very genuine witness. COOPER: Well, and the jurors get to think about that all weekend. I mean, this is that they're left with. HONIG: Yes. I think that's right. SCHEINDLIN: Yes. HONIG: I mean that's my sense too. I mean, courtrooms are strange places, emotionally, like they evoke odd emotions. You talked earlier, Anderson-- COOPER: It's totally true, yes. HONIG: --about your experience, as a witness. COOPER: And it totally changes the way you see the trial actually being able to sit in this room. HONIG: It-- COOPER: And again, which is why I wish there were cameras. HONIG: Yes. It's almost hard to explain. I mean, the first time I gave a closing, I don't think it was in front of you, Your Honor. It was a different judge. But I gave a closing, in a major case. I almost felt myself crying in front of the jury. I don't know why, to this day. AIDALA: Oh take it easy. As a prosecutor. HONIG: You guys-- AIDALA: As a prosecutor's crying? HONIG: Oh, you guys, these-- AIDALA: Oh, I saw him in the truck (ph). HONIG: These guys-- AIDALA: Sorry, sorry, judge. HONIG: These guys -- these guys cry on command. They can just bring it up like method actors. For me? AIDALA: That's right. You got the-- (CROSSTALK) HONIG: For me, it didn't have anything to do with the facts of the case. It was just it's this dramatic crescendo of something you've been working on, and invested in for months. It had nothing to do with the case. I held it back, by the way. AIDALA: Thank you. Appreciate it. HONIG: But it does evoke unexpected emotions. We're both grizzled veterans, it doesn't impact us anymore. SCHEINDLIN: Well let me add one thing. HONIG: But someone for the first time, yes. SCHEINDLIN: On most of my juries, I would talk to the juries -- jurors, after the end of the trial. And I say, what was really important to you what struck you? And sometimes, they would say, witness so and so really got to me because of what she said and how she said it. HONIG: Yes. SCHEINDLIN: And it was always fascinating to talk to the jurors after the trial. AIDALA: I always talk to the jurors-- SCHEINDLIN: Yes. It-- AIDALA: --after the trial, because I learn. SCHEINDLIN: Yes. AIDALA: I learn so much what went well. SCHEINDLIN: Absolutely. AIDALA: And what didn't went well. Oh, I didn't believe that or -- but I'm thinking, well that was our best witness? No, it wasn't. It was actually that one. COOPER: In your experience. I mean, for all of you -- lawyers here, and judge, do jurors pay attention? I mean, is it -- is it sure -- I mean, 90 percent the facts of the case that they learn? Or is it their judgment about the honesty and character of the person testifying? SCHEINDLIN: I think to a great degree, it's their judgment, as to the credibility of witnesses. I think it does boil down to that, because many cases, some witnesses say one thing, some say exactly the opposite. Who do you believe? And it boils down, I think, to a great degree, to credibility. COOPER: And so, it boils down to a gut feeling-- SCHEINDLIN: Yes. COOPER: --based on what happens in that courtroom? HONIG: It's a very human process. SCHEINDLIN: Yes. HONIG: I mean, we think of the jury as this monolith, the jury. SCHEINDLIN: Yes. HONIG: But it's 12 human beings. SCHEINDLIN: Yes. HONIG: I mean, we learned about them a couple weeks ago that a woman, who's an IT professional, a man who -- the two lawyers. But it's just the human. And I'm also constantly but surprised by who juries believe, and who they don't. I've seen juries take the word of people way worse than Michael Cohen, and return convictions. SCHEINDLIN: Absolutely. HONIG: And I've seen the opposite too. I've seen juries reject testimony from people, who I thought were great witnesses. AIDALA: It's also, we're sitting here for two hours, like analyzing everything, that Hope Hicks did, and how she handled the microphone, and her hair. And I don't know if jurors are doing that. I think tomorrow, they're going to communions. They're going to do some gardening. They're going to foster a dog, and kind of go on with their life. And Monday, they'll get back into the groove. HONIG: But you know? SCHEINDLIN: Sometimes, sometimes, they just like some witnesses, and take a dislike to other witness. And it's visceral. And we don't entirely know why. PHILLIP: I have to say-- FARAH GRIFFIN: How does that work though, when it's kind of a mixed witness, like Hope Hicks, who made, you know, did well for the prosecution, but also for the defense? Where do you think that falls with the jury? SCHEINDLIN: I think that makes her appear very credible, because she didn't try to get him. COOPER: Yes. SCHEINDLIN: She was trying to be fair and balanced. So, that made her a credible witness. And each side can argue that because she's credible, you should believe this part. COOPER: Judge Scheindlin, thank you. It's great to have you. The rest, stay with us. On the stand, today, Hope Hicks revealed how Trump-world first learned about the Access Hollywood tape, who broke it to her, and the rest of the world. We're about to be joined by the reporter, who broke that story to her directly, in an email. We'll be right back. [21:30:00] (COMMERCIAL BREAK) COOPER: October 7th, 2016, the deadly Hurricane Matthew is battering America, and then a different kind of storm hit, so big it would knock the hurricane out of the news cycle, as was mentioned in court today, by Hope Hicks. That recollection, from the former Trump campaign Secretary, Hicks, on the stand, referring to the infamous Access Hollywood tape, walking the jury, through how, she first learned about it, and the crisis that would spark inside Trump-world. This portion is the reason why, listen. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) TRUMP: You know, I'm automatically attracted to beautiful women -- I just start kissing them. It's like a magnet. I just kiss. I don't even wait. And when you're a star, they let you do it. You can do anything. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Whatever you want. TRUMP: Grab them by the (bleep). You can do anything. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: You know, those legs, all I could see is the legs. TRUMP: No, it looks good. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Come on, shorty. TRUMP: Nice legs, huh. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Get out of the way, honey. That's good legs. (END VIDEO CLIP) COOPER: It went on. Hope Hicks learned about it through an email, from a then-Washington Post reporter, named David Fahrenthold, seeking comment. It was shown in court today. The subject line, from him, of the email was Urgent Washington Post query. The email contained a transcript of what was said, on that Access Hollywood tape. Asked what her first reaction was, Hicks replied, quote, I was very concerned -- "I was concerned, very concerned." With us now is the reporter, who broke that bombshell, to tell her and the rest of the world. David Fahrenthold is now an investigative reporter with The New York Times. David, it's good to see you again. I'm wondering what you made of Hope Hicks' testimony, particularly how your scoop on that, on the Access Hollywood tape, was dealt with behind-the-scenes of the campaign, because I'm assuming this is probably the first time you've heard what it was like inside Trump- world, at that time. DAVID FAHRENTHOLD, INVESTIGATIVE REPORTER, NEW YORK TIMES: Yes, it's a rare opportunity, as a reporter, to get this sort of see the other side of a day like this. So yes, we sent them this transcript, these questions, around 1:30 in the afternoon. And all I knew at that point was the responses I got back from them, which was first, ah, this doesn't sound like Mr. Trump, and send us the video to be sure. And then, after we sent them the video, they then confirmed it was him. Today, it was real -- so interesting, and sort of surreal to see all the steps that happened in between. [21:35:00] COOPER: We learned in court, according to Hope Hicks, she went to Trump, showed him the email from you. And he said, well that doesn't -- or told him about it. And he said, well, that doesn't sound like me. Is that where she got the response to send to you, saying it doesn't sound like Mr. Trump? FAHRENTHOLD: It must have been. And at the time, when she said that, oh that doesn't sound like him? I was like, I mean, after all we had -- remember where this was, was the end of the 2016 campaign. COOPER: Yes, I know. It sounded exactly like him-- FAHRENTHOLD: Yes. COOPER: Even in the written word. FAHRENTHOLD: Yes, right. So, this, I thought, really? She was saying that like in her own voice, like, oh, this doesn't sound like the man I know. And now, we know it was just Trump saying, it doesn't sound like me. And she just passed that on verbatim. COOPER: She was talking about the length of time that they had to respond. You said you reached out to her at 1:30. I think she testified today that the story was published at 3:30. Correct me if I'm wrong. What -- how much time was there? And at what point did you send her the tape? FAHRENTHOLD: We sent her, as you saw it, about 1:30, we sent her that transcript. She comes back to us, I don't remember when, but at some point later, and says it doesn't sound like him. Send us the tape. There was some debate internally in our end, about whether we would send them the tape, and we decided we would. So we sent the tape at like 3:50, and said, look, we are convinced this is him. We don't need you to confirm this is him on the tape. We're going to publish our story at 4 PM. You can comment or you cannot comment, but the story is going up then. And they called back, right at 4, and said, OK, wait, it's him. COOPER: Right. FAHRENTHOLD: And here's his excuse for why he's not like that. COOPER: On the tape, he gets out of the bus. So I mean, it's there's -- there's little question, it's actually him. FAHRENTHOLD: Right. COOPER: It's -- yes. What else stood out to you about her testimony today? FAHRENTHOLD: Well I laughed at the -- so, in her initial sort of email to -- the blast email to the people in the Trump campaign, asking, what should I do about this? She's like, well, here's some options. And one of her options was deny, deny, deny, which I laughed at, because that was obviously the way the Trump campaign worked, in 2016, was just no matter what was happening, and I've been dealing with them for months, you know, no matter what proof you had, they didn't care if it was right. They didn't want to figure out if you were right. They just wanted to deny it. So, it was funny for me to see that inaction. Their first reaction was, let's not even find out if it's true. Maybe we should just say well it isn't, and just deny it without learning more. COOPER: The, you know, and now, Trump-world is sort of trying to downplay the impact of this tape of this moment. For everybody, who lived through it, they remember it. How do you remember the impact this story had, once you published it? FAHRENTHOLD: I've never been a part of anything like it. So, we published it about 4 in the afternoon, on Friday. The Washington Post had sort of a little internal system to measure (ph). That was like a -- looked like a speedometer to show how much traffic, how many people had read your story. And it was like a Bugs Bunny moment. It literally spun around like the dial in a Bugs Bunny movie. COOPER: Yes. FAHRENTHOLD: It had been read all over the world. I've never been part of a story that had that kind of impact. Now, obviously, I didn't write the story, thinking well, OK, we're going to sink Trump's campaign. And when it was out, I didn't think OK, I have sunk Trump's campaign. There was another month left to go. But it may -- obviously had a profound effect to the point that even Paul Ryan, very prominent Republicans, were walking away from Trump, refusing to be seen with Trump, by the end of that day. COOPER: Yes. Alyssa, I mean, you joined the Trump White House, later. Was there a ghost or a shadow from that Access Hollywood tape still sort of around the West Wing? FARAH GRIFFIN: Yes, very much so. So, I joined in the end of 2017, as the Vice President's press secretary. And shortly after is when the Karen McDougal story became public in early 2018. So, it was sort of -- there was just -- it felt like something you can't get away from, the problems that he had with women, accusers coming forward. E. Jean Carroll was even part of the discussion at that time. So, it was always sort of underlying. But the thing I want to underscore is we're talking about this in 2024. Republicans kind of made peace with this in 2016. I can't explain why. I can't defend it. But most of them kind of said, you know it's obviously him on that tape. You can see it with your own eyes, hear it with your own ears. And so, I kind of wonder with this case. There's the jury, and then there's the public opinion. I don't think many Republicans are going to care about these additional facts that we're learning. It's stunning to say, realizing that in 2016, this nearly sunk him, and people were ready to walk away. That's not where we are now. COOPER: All right not just Republican -- evangelicals-- FARAH GRIFFIN: Yes. COOPER: --Republicans, you know. FARAH GRIFFIN: They're more firmly with him now, even as more facts have come out, even as he's now been found liable in a civil suit around sexual assault. COLLINS: And you know what the thinking in Trump-world is, is basically? Because there are people -- Jason Miller is one of the campaign aides, who was in that room, in the courtroom with Donald Trump, and has been there a lot. He was one of the ones that Hope Hicks emailed that day, and copied him on, just to speak to the people who have been around him for a long time. And there was this thinking in Trump-world that if they could survive Access Hollywood, they could survive anything. And nothing fazes them, even when there's a big story that's damaging as much as it did that day. And I just think it speaks to how they handle things. And the, deny, deny, deny statement that Hope Hicks, that was her reflex action? They still do that. I mean, we'll report something, completely factual that maybe isn't even that damaging to them. It's just a fact. And they'll say denial, fake news, denial, fake news, and then like we prove that it's correct. [21:40:00] But that's just their instinct always-- PHILLIP: Yes. COLLINS: --is to deny factual things. FARAH GRIFFIN: That is a great point. Sorry, just quickly. PHILLIP: Yes. FARAH GRIFFIN: Because I remember being on Air Force One with Hope Hicks, in mid-2020, and a story that I thought was shocking was about Trump's taxes, probably 30 questions from The New York Times. I went in and said, we've got to get this to the President. This is a huge story. And she's like, this is nothing. You don't -- you've not seen anything. You weren't there in 2016. We survived Access Hollywood. That is the mindset. That was their barometer. And if you survived it, everything else would kind of be fine. PHILLIP: Yes. And it's changed all of Republican politics since then. I mean, every sort of Trumpian candidate has to have that same mindset that every piece of adversity they come across, they have to just barrel right through it. I do think though, there is a little bit of revisionist history in Trump-world. FARAH GRIFFIN: Just a little? PHILLIP: I mean, being generous here. But especially after those -- that last six weeks of that campaign, it wasn't just Access Hollywood. I mean, a lot of things happened. There was the Anthony Weiner stuff. There was the laptop with Hillary Clinton. There were other factors that were at play there. And not to mention that, but there, the election was extremely close. It wasn't like Trump won in a landslide. So, there is this tendency in Trump-world to over-interpret their ability to survive Access Hollywood, not taking into consideration all of the other elements that went into what happened in 2016. But Trump still lives with that sort of God Complex, where he's like, I'm the guy, who did what no one else could ever do before. And I did it just sheer force of will, because the American people didn't care. I think, yes, some Americans did not care. But I also think there were a lot of other factors that went into it as well. COOPER: David, I mean, your reporting. It's easy to kind of forget this because, things, so much has happened over the last couple of years. But there was also all those fables about Donald Trump's charity, and his support of veterans, and giving millions and millions of dollars to veterans. Your reporting showed that just was not the case. FAHRENTHOLD: That's right. Well, one of the really interesting things about 2016 was learning that so much of what Trump had said about his charitable giving, this sort of Bruce Wayne persona he had was included a lot of brags about his charitable-giving was wrong. I mean, even in the course of the campaign, his campaign said he'd given out a million dollars out of his own pockets to veterans, to veterans' charities, and it turned out to be completely a lie. He hadn't given $1. And then he would use things like he would use his charities' money to buy giant portraits of himself. I liked that sort of the stories, because you learn so much about Trump by viewing how, in private, just the same way the Access Hollywood showed, how he talked in private, the non-profit stories showed how he acted in private, and how charitable he was, or wasn't, when no one was looking. COOPER: Yes. Arthur, I mean, the defense was able to keep the jury from seeing the Access Hollywood tape. Does that really matter, given how much they'd heard about it? I'm sure they even remember. AIDALA: Well, first of all, Judge Merchan gets the credit for the jury not hearing that. I mean, the defense asked. But he granted that. And it does. I mean, Anderson, as a defense attorney, you want to crawl under the table, when you hear your client's voice, saying something nasty. And there's nothing you can do. You can't cross- examine it. You can't, you know? So yes, I think it does matter. Even though they've heard the words, it's different when they hear them coming out of your client's mouth. COOPER: Yes. HONIG: I think this aspect of the prosecution's case has come in clear and strong and straightforward, which is when that tape hit, it was a bombshell, in the campaign. They were panicked, and they couldn't afford to have the Stormy Daniels allegations come out. And that's why they made the payment. And that's an important but -- it's not the whole case. But it's an important part of the case. That part's strong to me. COOPER: David Fahrenthold, your reporting always is just extraordinary. So, thank you so much. Appreciate it. Thanks for being with us. Have a good weekend. FAHRENTHOLD: Sure. COOPER: Coming up, we're going to discuss the first time that Hope Hicks testified, about her former boss, with a former member of the January 6 committee. [21:45:00] (COMMERCIAL BREAK) COOPER: So, before Hope Hicks took the stand today, her intimate knowledge of the former President's thinking was on display, during her 2022 testimony to the January 6 committee. The committee used her recorded testimony, in its final hearing, to demonstrate that in the words of the Congresswoman, Zoe Lofgren, quote, "Trump was told repeatedly by his campaign advisers, government officials and others," that "there was no evidence to support his claims of election fraud." Take a look. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) HOPE HICKS, FORMER COUNSELOR TO PRESIDENT TRUMP: I was becoming increasingly concerned that we were damaging -- we were damaging his legacy. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: What did the President say in response to what you just described? HICKS: He said something along the lines of, you know, nobody will care about my legacy if I lose. So that won't matter. The only thing that matters is, is winning. (END VIDEO CLIP) COOPER: We're joined now by a member of the January 6 committee, former Republican congressman, Adam Kinzinger. He's the Author of "Renegade: Defending Democracy and Liberty in Our Divided Country." Congressman, how would you describe Hope Hicks' credibility and her willingness to be candid to the January 6 committee? Because it's interesting to compare her testimony to your committee versus her testimony today. ADAM KINZINGER, (R) FORMER U.S. REPRESENTATIVE - ILLINOIS, (R) FORMER MEMBER, JANUARY 6 SELECT COMMITTEE, AUTHOR, "RENEGADE," CNN SENIOR POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: Yes, look, I mean, my impression of her was, as far as I know, honest, not necessarily eager to come in front of the committee, not -- probably not eager to go in front of this courtroom. But does her duty, and does so honestly. And that was the impression I got was, she wasn't really hiding anything. You had to ask the questions, obviously. She's not going to volunteer it. But that she had a real concern for Donald Trump. As you mentioned that clip she was concerned about his legacy. At one point after January 6th, there were text messages, I forget who she sent them to, where she said, we all look like domestic terrorists now. So, she's a pretty sane person in a pretty insane world. [21:50:00] And unfortunately, she's been caught up in a lot of this. I mean, Donald Trump, you know, she was in the room basically anywhere he was. And unfortunately, she's had to testify not before just our committee, now in front of this court. But I think she's had to come in and talk to the Intel Committee in the past too. So, she's just kind of gotten caught up in all this. COOPER: You were a sitting Republican member of Congress, during the fall of 2016, when the Access Hollywood tape was revealed. It obviously sent shockwaves through your party. How surreal is it, after all, the political legal drama, in the past eight years that Hope Hicks was on the witness stand, in this particular trial today, amid all the drama that's still pending? KINZINGER: I mean, look, it's all surreal. I still, I mean, I still can't even believe Donald Trump was president, to be honest with you. And when that hit, I remember I had said even before that, that I couldn't support Donald Trump for president, because of what he had made about the fallen soldier, and he had gone after the fallen soldier, at the -- I think, it was at the convention. But yes, I mean, sitting there, when this tape came out, I mean, I had a number of colleagues then officially in public said they can't support Donald Trump. And I can tell you, there was a lot of discussion, there was a lot of hope that Trump would then back out of the campaign, that somehow there would be, the party would be able to put somebody else in there, probably Mike Pence. And I remember then specifically, when he said, I'm not getting out, I'm going to stay in this race, the discussion among other members of Congress that are Republicans were like, well, he's definitely going to lose now. But as you all mentioned, in the prior segment, there was so much that happened even after that that it kind of washed under the bus. And the Comey and Hillary Clinton thing was the last thing people were thinking of. COOPER: Yes. I want to bring in the panel here, as well. This trial is moving quite fast. Isn't it? HONIG: It really is. I'm going to -- I'm going to say, you can make Memorial Day plans. I think we're going to have a verdict by Memorial Day. Going to go out on a limb here. COOPER: Really? HONIG: Yes, it's moving quickly. I mean, let's think about what's left. Michael Cohen's definitely going to take the stand. And I think that's a week. I think that's four days. David Pecker was two and a half days. But other than-- COOPER: You think Cohen will be on the stand for four days? HONIG: Yes, including direct and cross-examination. But other than Michael Cohen, OK, Stormy Daniels is a maybe, Karen McDougal's a maybe. Kellyanne Conway is a maybe, trending towards no, let's just see. And Kaitlan just saying unlikely. COLLINS: It doesn't make any sense. HONIG: How long are they going to be? I mean, Hope Hicks was three hours today. Maybe a little more. You'll probably have a few more of these document custodian type witnesses, the interns and the D.A.'s investigators. But this is moving. Neither side is dragging their feet. The direct exams are as they should be, direct and focused. Defense lawyers sometimes like to drag out these endless cross-examinations. But both Todd Blanche and Emil Bove are former prosecutors. They just have gotten right to the point. This is moving quickly and efficiently. AIDALA: Well I-- COLLINS: Well and they did something today that they've -- that Trump team has never done, which is stipulate, which basically-- HONIG: Yes. COLLINS: --agree that the sky is blue, and the prosecutors and the defense both agree. And so, that is the sense within the teams that I also spoke with, and maybe two to three more weeks of this. HONIG: Yes. COLLINS: And what it's going to look like. I think a lot of it relies on, if they do have to continue bringing in witnesses, who are verifying that recordings are real, and texts are real, and Truth Social posts are real here. AIDALA: So, whatever it's worth, I was in court, Wednesday, on a pretty high-profile case. And the judge adjourned it to Friday, May 31st, I believe. And we were walking out. And I saw the clerk, that, everyone scurried up to the bench, and said dadada -- and then they called us back in, and they said, well, we think there's going to be another big case still going on here. Now, this is just court offices and clerks guessing. They're not lawyers guessing. But so, they -- we -- they had -- they made us move the date from Friday until Wednesday, when it's a Trump day-off, which is right after Memorial Day. So, my friend here may not be totally off. HONIG: Yes. I mean, you have to plan for that. COOPER: You obviously do not have Trump on that witness list that you mentioned, I assume. HONIG: He's not taking the stand. I mean, no, he's already bailing out, right? He's -- and he's doing it exactly the way we predicted on this show. He's going to say, as he's already started to do, look, they bear the burden of proof. My lawyers have demolished their witnesses, so thoroughly, that there's no need for me to take the stand. And tactically, I mean, that, to me is the exact right call. I'm sure you would be begging him not to take the stand. AIDALA: Begging? I would handcuff him to -- I would handcuff him to the table. FARAH GRIFFIN: By the way, this is, in many ways, I think for the general public, one of the least important Trump cases. And I think seeing this and even learning some new information, from Hope Hicks under oath, underscores why January 6, a case with so much public scrutiny and things that people actually want to see resolution on, it's so important that it be tried before the election. There's so much new information that could come out. Having folks, who've been reticent to testify, have to under oath. COOPER: Yes. FARAH GRIFFIN: And I don't think that's likely. COOPER: Yes, Congressman, I mean, do you think the outcome of this trial is going to matter politically, one way or another? KINZINGER: I think it'll have an impact. I don't think it's going to necessarily be a decisive impact. But if he's guilty, and he's guilty of a felony, it will always say, convicted felon Donald Trump. And it's going to make a difference around the margins. And in an election, frankly, where I mean, it could be decided by a few thousand votes, in a few states? It's certainly not going to help him. And it may hurt him just a little bit. [21:55:00] COLLINS: I mean, we said the same thing, when he was impeached, when he was indicted. I mean, he is now the presumptive Republican nominee. People were -- didn't believe he could get here. I think there is a lot of skepticism. I don't think we know the political impact, because I don't think the trial has been good for them. They went into it thinking, it's a no-known. We already had all of this out there. And he's still won the election. But to Abby's point, he also lost in 2020. And it's not guaranteed. They don't -- I mean, the numbers, when you've been looking at the polls, which are just a snapshot, have been pretty close, between Trump and Biden, and they've become more even, as we've gotten closer to the summer. And so, we don't know. COOPER: Yes. PHILLIP: Yes. We don't. And we may not know, in general, because between now and when this trial ends, and when the election is, is approximately 50,000 lifetimes, like, so many things can happen between now and then. However, anytime the voters are reminded of all of the things that Donald Trump comes with? That is generally not a good thing for Donald Trump. He has really benefited from being able to have some space, between his last presidency and now. COOPER: Yes. PHILLIP: And that's actually what's been the hardest thing for the Biden campaign to deal with. COOPER: Yes. I want to thank everybody in the panel. Thank you for spending Friday night with us. Congressman as well, Congressman Adam Kinzinger, appreciate it. The news continues. So does CNN's special primetime trial coverage. Have a great weekend, everybody. We'll be right back after a short break. (COMMERCIAL BREAK) CNN NewsNight with Abby Phillip Aired May 03, 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: Welcome to a special edition of NEWSNIGHT. I'm Abby Phillip in New York alongside Laura Coates. And tonight, reunited from a distance and under subpoena, the former president of the United States and the aide who was by his side as he ascended the political ladder, they sat mere feet apart today. There was no mistaking it. Hope Hicks was inside a Manhattan courtroom against her will. The woman who spent years answering questions for Trump was now answering questions from the prosecution. Government lawyers see Hicks as the code breaker, the person who knows him about as well as anyone. And most critically, she can speak to his deep involvement in managing everything about his orbit. But did what Hope Hicks say while she was under oath actually do damage to the prosecution's case in some ways? LAURA COATES, CNN ANCHOR: I mean, through tears at times, she actually mapped out the final months of the 2016 campaign and the tumultuous seas as the campaign tried, at least, Abby, to navigate the mess that was the Access Hollywood tape, including, by the way, the furious effort to make Stormy's stories go away. I mean, she recalled private conversation with Cohen, said that she doubted that he would have made a $130,000 payment, quote, out of the kindness of his heart, recounted how the Trump business functioned like a mom and pop shop with the, quote, core family members as the key deciders. The prosecution, they scored its most important moment when they elicited this from Hope Hicks about the days after The Wall Street Journal broke the story of Trump's alleged tryst with the adult film actress and director, saying, quote, I believe I heard Mr. Trump speaking to Mr. Cohen shortly after the story was published. PHILLIP: But Hicks may have also offered reasonable doubt, gift wrapped for the defense. As this case moves forward, the case hinges on if the prosecution can prove whether Trump did what they alleged to benefit his campaign. That is critical. So, his longtime aid hinted that Trump may have in fact cared to keep the story quiet because of his wife. Here's the quote. He was concerned how it would be viewed by his wife. And he wanted me to make sure that the newspapers weren't delivered to their residents that morning. Our panel is here with us to page through all of the important moments from this dramatic day. We've got Omarosa Manigault Newman, Olivia Nuzzi, Stacy Schneider, Jennifer Rodgers and Donte Mills. Quite a moment. I'm going to start on this end of the table because these are like the Hope Hicks whisperers. Maybe you're going to be that for us at this table. But, Omarosa, when you see all that transpired with Hope, the tears, the angst, but then also the testimony, at the end of the day, what do you think she provided for the prosecution? She was their witness on the witness stand today. OMAROSA MANIGAULT NEWMAN, FORMER SENIOR ADVISER, TRUMP ADMINISTRATION: Well, first let me talk about what stood out to me. Hope has this incredible memory. So anytime she said that she couldn't remember or didn't recall, I know it's a legal tactic, but it was a little surprising for me in that respect. But there were some things that were very similar to my time working with her from the campaign into the White House. She is a messenger for Trump. And I think that she kind of went into a default for that when she took some unnecessary jabs at Cohen. She said that he broke things and/or he would create these situations where he broke them and he would have to fix them. And I thought that was really odd, particularly since he had to fix things for her. I don't know if you guys recall her alleged relationship with Corey Lewandowski, Cohen had to kill stories about that relationship on her behalf, and he did. So, I thought some of those things were her kind of falling into the default of continuing to be a messenger for Donald Trump, but there were other moments that I thought were very poignant. COATES: That's interesting, I mean, the way you phrase that, especially because I think people often -- there's so much absence of transparency about what really goes on behind the closed doors. And you would hear her name with Kellyanne Conway or others who were maybe the true believers, so to speak, Olivia. And I do wonder, was she an ideologue? Was she considered a partisan within the organization? Or was she considered somebody, you're already shaking your head, no, somebody who was just a communications person? [22:05:00] OLIVIA NUZZI, WASHINGTON CORRESPONDENT, NEW YORK MAGAZINE: She was a communications person. She became very close to the family beginning in 2012 when she started working for Ivanka Trump, and then she went into the Trump Organization. She really liked Trump, and she became very defensive of him. If there was ever a bunker mentality, as they took a lot of incoming, all of it justified, I think, from the press over all of those years, she really felt like, oh, well, why don't people see the Trump that I see? And I think it took her a very long time. There was a lot of self- deception at play for everyone who stayed, and I think it took her a very, very long time to start to realize that the Trump that she saw on a daily basis or how he treated her was not representative and, in fact, maybe just didn't matter at all relative to how he treated the country and the world. COATES: Your mouth is moving already, this is how you're thinking. Go ahead. NEWMAN: She was working for Ivanka. And it wasn't that she just kind of segued over for Trump. He saw her, he saw her as attractive, an attractive woman, and he snatched her from Ivanka. He wanted her to work for him because of her aesthetics. We all know that Donald Trump is obsessed with looks, and that is the sole reason that he chose her. He even tells the story about how she had absolutely no experience in this space, but because she was pretty, he put her in charge of communication. That is the fact. She snatched her because of how she looked. NUZZI: Omarosa, inception of you, nobody in that White House, nobody on that campaign had White House experience. So, the idea that there were all of these old hands from politics is wrong. NEWMAN: In fact, it was the opposite. She had absolutely no experience. NUZZI: Right, that's what I'm saying. So, she was an outlier in terms of not having any political experience. I mean, that was pretty much the norm. It was sort of the island of misfit toys over there. DONTE MILLS, NATIONAL TRIAL ATTORNEY, MILLS AND EDWARDS, LLP: Well, if I can jump in just to defend her a little bit now that you guys are attacking her, but to look at it from a different angle. She came into this courtroom. And it's one thing where you know you're going to have to testify against somebody because she was called by the prosecution, meaning she had evidence that would hurt Donald Trump. Otherwise, they wouldn't have called her. She knew that coming in, I'm sure, that was tough for her to deal with and you plan it and I'm sure she went through a lot of preparation. But then you get in that courtroom. It's cold. It's large You see the defendant sitting at that table, the judge there, and I'm sure she went back to the default. She said she was nervous. I'm sure she just went back to her default, her comfort zone of Donald Trump was nice to me. I'm going to try to be nice to him but try and be as truthful as I possibly can. But you have to understand a situation she was in. You're under a lot of pressure and you know the magnitude of the situation and you're testifying against somebody who treated you well. PHILLIP: Can I just make an observation? And this is a little informed by having covered Trump. If you're in the jury and you don't really understand Trump world, you are coming to understand the gravity of it all. If you're a Hope Hicks, the sense of loyalty that you have to this man, the emotion that's around that, she wasn't just any employee. She wasn't like any White House staffer. I think we take for granted that that is being conveyed with the tears and with the emotion, with all of the testimony, I think, speaks to that. And what she testified to today, which was this was a campaign and what she called a big business that was run like a small family office, like a family corporation, all of that, I think, is some atmospherics, don't you think, Stacy, for the jury to kind of understand, who is this guy and what is it like to work for him? STACY SCHNEIDER, NEW YORK CITY CRIMINAL DEFENSE ATTORNEY: Yes. And you know what, why that is so important in this case is because Donald Trump's defense here, which was foreshadowed in his lawyer's opening statement, is this had nothing to do with the campaign. This was for my family, my brand, and my reputation. And what Hope Hicks has done is testified that Donald Trump -- everybody reported to Donald Trump and the Trump Organization. These little points are not coincidental. They're intentional. The D.A.'s office put her on there as their witness. This is not Donald Trump's witness, even though they had a great relationship and supposedly they haven't been speaking since 2022. But, clearly, her emotions were -- there was a favorable energy between the two of them, according to everybody who was in court today. But this was a strategic decision to show through Hope Hicks that while she was working on this campaign, she was getting calls from Michael Cohen about managing the campaign, even though everyone is saying Michael Cohen was just the fixer, he had nothing to do with the campaign, he's a horrible person, he's difficult to work with, these are all -- Hope Hicks was the witness to tie Trump back into the alleged scheme because Trump's lawyers are going to pull him out and say, Michael Cohen did this without permission from Donald Trump. MILLS: Except to Omarosa's point, she said -- [22:10:00] COATES: I was in court today, and I want to make clear for one thing. And just I kind of wanted to linger for all the beautiful faces on this set, I didn't get the impression that Hope Hicks was just a pretty face to be dismissed. I got the impression that maybe there was some reason that perhaps he first noticed her, to your point, Omarosa. She's a striking woman in the courtroom, and everywhere else. But my impression of the testimony and what they listed from her and from accounts is that she was good at what she was doing, but she said he was the best at actually managing his own brand. And so when they brought her in to that point about Michael Cohen, she considered him and went along with the testimony to affirm this. She said, look, Michael Cohen was sometimes frustrated into the campaign. He sometimes was doing things that were not what they wanted them to do, that he was a rogue person at times, which is probably an understatement in some respects of it. But I think she was trying to convey the point that in this mom and pop, and I want to hear your experience, that nothing really went down, that Trump didn't have some fingerprints or some agency over. Was that your experience working there? NEWMAN: That's absolutely my experience. But I want to clarify something. People say that Michael wasn't involved with the campaign. It's just not true. As someone who was there from day one and watched every one of those pieces put into place, there were only 14 of us, Cohen was an integral part of the early organization of the Trump campaign. Anytime someone says that to me, it's laughable. And also, he actually helped to organize some of the people who are in the key positions of the campaign strategically where they are. So, when people dismiss him as just someone on the outside, it's just not the case. He traveled with us when we had to formulate this diversity coalition for Donald Trump. You'll see tons of pictures with him. Look at the pictures from Cleveland. Look at the pictures from Detroit. Michael Cohen is right there involved in the campaign. That's number one. Number two, Michael Cohen could not do anything in that organization without Donald Trump knowing, without Donald Trump directing. Donald Trump knew how many people were in his lobby buying ice creams from the ice cream shop, how many people were coming into the parking garage and which parking attendant was working these. That's how involved he was in the organization. To say that Michael Cohen went rogue is laughable. It's somebody who doesn't know Trump world and doesn't know how Donald Trump operates. PHILLIP: I mean, Hope Hicks said as much. SCHNEIDER: Omarosa, I mean, don't you think it's consistent with how Trump operates? I mean, we were both on different seasons of The Apprentice, but there's blurred lines between his business, the Trump Organization, there were blurred lines between the business, the T.V. show, his campaign, the White House, everything, you know, it's Trump world, and it's all together. So, I mean -- NEWMAN: All of us was that we all ended up in Michael Cohen's office. We all talked about all those different deals from golf courses, to talk shows, to T.V. shows to production companies, which you agree the centerpiece of all of that activity as we all partied in Michael Cohen's office and all of the problems that went wrong, all the things that went left, we ended up in there either taking shots or crying, including Hope Hicks. NUZZI: And to your point, I mean, the campaign office in 2016 was literally on the fifth floor, which was The Apprentice studio. So, they stopped filming The Apprentice. MILLS: The problem is you guys know that. The jury doesn't. They jury doesn't know that. So, when Hope Hicks, who the jury believes has this special relationship, comes in, they think she's an insider, and she says, no, Michael Cohen was a rogue guy. He did things without Trump knowing they weren't in those offices with you when you know that's laughable, that's not possible. So, the issue for the prosecution is, will they bring in the right witnesses that's going to solidify that point and convince the jury that Trump knew everything that was going on? Or will those little comments by Hope Hicks move the jury to think things can happen without him knowing? PHILLIP: I just want to remind, though, that she also was very clear. Michael Cohen was not going to write a $130,000 check just to write a $130,000 check. COATES: Out of kindness of his heart, right? PHILLIP: It was not out of the kindness, because she implied that there was no kindness of his heart. Like that was the implication. But that's a -- even while painting him in a negative light, that's a crucial piece of information. JENNIFER RODGERS, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: And she also did some other things. And, by the way, I mean, this whole demeanor and the positive vibes mean that the jury believes her. So, when she said things like Michael Cohen was involved, I overheard Michael Cohen talking to Trump about this stuff. I overheard conversations between Trump and David Pecker around this time about these things. The jury believes that. You know, they are taking these points that the prosecutor is trying to build. Now, she doesn't get the prosecutors across the finish line or even close on the main crime, which is the falsification of the business records, and we still have to see that. But honestly, this part about was it about the election? She scored points for the prosecution there. And that to me is a slam dunk. This notion that just because she said Trump was also worried about what his wife thought, who cares? There is so much overwhelming evidence that this was about the election. All they have to do is show that that was a substantial part of it. I think that part is done. COATES: The thing is, too, I want a quick break, but substantial is not quantified in New York. So, the idea of saying what's substantial to you might be, well, it had to be 99 percent in favor of Melania and 1 percent of the campaign, but that's not actually quantified. [22:15:09] It's got to be probably more fit with 50 percent. But this jury is going to have to think about what they think about it, Abby. PHILLIP: They're going to have to sort through all of that. I don't envy them. I really don't. Everyone stick around. So, did Hope Hicks' testimony help or hurt Trump's case ultimately? We'll debate that again, next. Plus, we'll speak with a famed jury consultant on the impact of a witness getting emotional on the witness stand. (COMMERCIAL BREAK) [22:20:00] COATES: So, here's the big question. Did Hope Hicks' testimony actually help or hurt Donald Trump's case? Jen Rogers mentioned a very important moment before the break. And, Stacy, I think you have the transcript as well. I want you to read the part about Melania Trump. That's what I leaned in in the courtroom. SCHNEIDER: Okay, so here's directly from the transcript. Here's what was elicited from Hope Hicks about Melania. President Trump really values Mrs. Trump's opinion and she doesn't weigh in all the time, but when she does, it's really meaningful to him. He really respects what she has to say. I think he was just concerned what her perception of this would be. COATES: Can I do a Golden Girl Sophia Petrillo moment for a second? Sorry, picture it, Manhattan courtroom 2024. When this came out, it was so important because it was around the time he was trying to figure out, was he concerned about the headlines? And even when, as far as to say, Hope Hicks testified, that he did not want the newspapers delivered to the residents because he was afraid that she would see it, which, of course, I thought, so is Melania getting up in the morning and like reading the paper and leaning in? But you guys, I mean, you're laughing at that, about this notion that they may be at the newspaper, but did he value Melania Trump's opinion? Did he respect it? NEWMAN: I mean, there were times that he did, the truth of matters. He talked to Ivanka more often than he did to Melania about things that were important. He consulted Ivanka more than he would her. But the whole thing about the newspaper, I've been to Trump's home. I don't know if you all have been. They're not like dropping newspapers at your stoop, right? COATES: There's a lot of paperboy. There's a lot of -- NEWMAN: I've never seen her hold a piece of paper for information since I met her. I mean, I met them when they were engaged. That's not who she is. She might read it on her phone or on her iPad, but he really wasn't concerned about her seeing a newspaper cover and it changing. MILLS: But there has to be some worry that he had about these kind of salacious things reaching his family. And this is what we talked about before the break. We don't know what their line is going to be, what the judge is going to instruct the jury on, if it can be a mixed bag, if it can be, I wanted to protect my family's name and my reputation, my relationship with my wife. But the campaign also factored in, is that enough? Because, clearly, they can show that he was doing things like this, catching and killing stories before he was running for president. So, if you follow that through and say, this had nothing to do, it wasn't about the presidency, he would have done this whether he was running for president or not. Is that enough to be -- NUZZI: But an angry wife is a political problem, right? If you're running for president and your wife is mad at you, and if she doesn't come out on the campaign trail, and it's one allegation after another, there were two dozen allegations of some sort of sexual misconduct, if all of a sudden Melania is not involved, she takes a step back, that's a big political message that's being sent. NEWMAN: But she did that. She didn't come down to Washington for months. NUZZI: Yes, right? And so I think -- PHILLIP: That has already been a factor for them multiple times. NUZZI: Just because it's a family concern, it doesn't mean that it's not also a political concern, the optics concern, to say something legally. SCHNEIDER: Even if the defense is successful and the jury believes Hope Hicks that he had this legitimate concern for his wife, it almost doesn't matter. He's being looked at for violating a New York State election conspiracy statute where it's alleged that he conspired with Michael Cohen to promote a candidate to office in an unlawful manner. So, whether he did it for his wife, which he's charged with having an affair, he's accused of having an affair, and, of course, he's going to be doing it also for his wife, but it doesn't matter because a celebrity has different rules when you're running for office. You're now no longer just a celebrity. You're now a candidate and you're governed by New York State and federal election law. COATES: Doesn't the intent aspect of it matter, though? I mean, the whole point is, I mean, we think oftentimes people think about John Edwards, for example, and the case involved in whether it was substantially in favor of political reasons or personal reasons, if the motivation was purely personal and had nothing to do with this, and they could make the argument, then actually it wasn't a campaign finance contribution, they failed to report. And that makes a difference. SCHNEIDER: No, you're absolutely right. Intense is crucial here. And we're not going to know Trump's intent from his own mouth, because I bet I'm putting all odds in Vegas that he will never take the stand no matter what he says. RODGERS: But we do. SCHNEIDER: It's too dangerous. RODGERS: But we know it from his own mouth through Hope Hicks and through David Pecker and through Michael Cohen. PHILLIP: It's such an important point that, I mean, we are taking these days of testimony day-by-day. But in the aggregate, we do know that the origin of this catch and kill scheme started in 2015 when they met with David Pecker and said, what can we do for the campaign? So, that evidence is also there and presumptively at the end of this process, it's all going to be brought together. [22:25:00] But, I mean, to me, there are multiple pieces of evidence, right, Jen, that suggest that this was definitely not -- I mean, even David Pecker said they didn't really -- they've not done this for Trump before, you know, that they did it -- COATES: For Karen McDougal, yes, but not the Stormy Daniels -- PHILLIP: No, no, I'm saying, right, Karen McDougal and Stormy Daniels were part of something that was new about their relationship with Trump and they did it after that 2015 meeting. RODGERS: And the timing. I mean, weeks before the election, they're trying to avoid paying Stormy Daniels because once you get past Election Day, you don't even have to shell out the money because who cares? I mean, all of that evidence, some of it is already coming, some of it is coming in, this is overwhelming. This to me is not the complicated piece of this puzzle. The complicated part is can you prove that he knew about the fraudulent repayments? Because that is the crime that's charged and that's what they have to prove, and that's what they haven't done yet. COATES: Can we -- I'm sorry, I haven't talked about the crying. I can't help it. I mean, I know. I know this is all very important. So, Laura Coates is nosy, and Laura Coates was leaning into the tears today. And I have got to know what you guys made, especially since you guys know her, as a reporter, obviously, you work with her. What did you make of the moment that Hope Hicks started crying? I mean, in the courtroom, it was -- NEWMAN: She was crying when the prosecution was questioning her. You know, it was actually at the -- it was when the cross began right after the -- NEWMAN: After they finished, right? So, it made me just kind of believe that it was just all becoming too much for her. I will say that she's a very sensitive person and I saw her cry often actually. COATES: Really? NEWMAN: If Donald -- yes, she is crier. If he yelled -- COATES: In what context? Hold on, what context is she crying? NEWMAN: If he yelled at her or something, or he, he criticized her for how she handled something, she would hold it together in front of him, but she would go into Michael Cohen's office or someone else's office, but she's a big crier, you guys. This is common for Hope Hicks to have a moment. MILLS: It was an overwhelming, especially if she cried after the direct examination, where the prosecution struck some points against Donald Trump. It may have hit her that she may be part of the reason that Donald Trump will go down. And to sit in that, in that second, it can be -- I'm sure it can be overwhelming and that may have led to those tears. NUZZI: Her time with Trump represents a huge portion of her life, right? She started working there in her mid-20s. She went with him to the White House, not something that she ever thought would happen, not something most people ever thought would happen, in her defense. And sitting there, all of these memories are being brought up. So, just thinking as a human being, I mean, for people who cover this, it's been an experience of like, what year is it? I haven't talked to you in years, maybe since we were in the White House together in 2017. It's been this very strange, sort of disorienting -- PHILLIP: There has been a rift. She hasn't talked to Trump -- NUZZI: There has been a rift. PHILLIP: -- in two years. NUZZI: Right. PHILLIP: And part of that is because when she testified before the January 6th committee, she said things that Trump wouldn't like, that -- NUZZI: Even before that, though. After he lost a presidency, I mean, there was a group of people who were around Trump who became -- they stayed, they didn't resign, right? They get no credit for resigning in protest. But he became -- it became useless to talk to him. And so daily conversations, daily, how is it playing, as we heard about him talking today about the Stormy Daniels story, that was not a factor anymore. He was listening to Sidney Powell and Rudy Giuliani. And so everything changed. And so I think for her sitting here today in this courtroom, reliving all of this, sitting feet from him, it's a very fraught, very emotional and very stressful thing. And as someone who was a crier and people who worked with her knew that and Trump knew that, I don't think it's surprising that she broke down a bit. PHILLIP: All right. Everyone, stand by for us. Coming up next, so how will the jury actually see that emotional moment? A jury consultant from the O.J. Simpson case is going to tell us what he thinks. (COMMERCIAL BREAK) [22:30:00] COATES: We've got more now on the dramatic moment in Donald Trump's trial as his longtime insider Hope Hicks broke down on the stand. The moment came after prosecutors had wrapped their questioning, which revealed that Trump communicated directly to her about the hush money payment and that he was relieved that the story did not come out before the election. Now she testified, quote, "it was Mr. Trump's opinion is that it was better to be dealing with it now and that it would have been bad to have that story come out before the election". And moments later, as the defense was beginning their own questioning, she became overwhelmed with emotion and turned her face and began to cry, prompting the defense counsel to ask if she needed a break. And she said that she did. They dismissed the jury. She got off the stand to go gather herself. And of course, the prosecution then followed her out. Remember, this is their witness. They had actually called for subpoena. So the question is, how will the jury who witnessed her crying on the stand, how will they see all of this? Joining us now is jury consultant Richard Gabriel, who's also the president of Decision Analysis, and the author of "Acquittal: an insider reveals the stories and strategies behind today's most infamous verdict". So Richard, I'm so glad you're here to unpack this, because you know what it takes to put together a jury to try to get your clients the very best chance. And so we're thinking about the composition of this jury and who might take the stand. You never can predict whether a witness will start being angry, will be emotional, will cry. How does that read to a jury when the witness breaks down? RICHARD GABRIEL, PRESIDENT, DECISION ANALYSIS AND JURY CONSULTANT: Well, it's, let's not forget that trials are essentially human events. COATES: Yeah. GABRIEL: And jurors, even though they're looking at this sort of cut and dried evidence that they're supposed to view objectively, they're really looking for what are the authentic moments. [22:34:59] Am I getting the straight story? And when you have a witness like this who exhibits some vulnerability, exhibits some human emotion, who's clearly conflicted because she's trying to tell the truth, but also feels some sort of loyalty to her former boss, that's an authentic moment. Jurors can appreciate that. And then it's up to them to sort of sort out, okay, first of all, it increases her credibility as a witness. And then it's up to then both sides to kind of characterize what is the damage done or the redemption from the particular testimony. So it's a very interesting type of testimony. COATES: Yeah. I mean, I was in the courtroom when it happened and I remember thinking, gosh, what will the jury make of what she has said before she comes back? And there was a moment beforehand that some argue was the trigger for why she broke down. In seeing it in real time, it almost appeared that she was just overwhelmed by the extent and the moment itself. But then I was concerned. I mean, as a former prosecutor, were you surprised, was it a lost opportunity for this jury that the defense counsel didn't ask what caused her to be emotional, even though it may have caused him to ask a question he did not know the answer to? GABRIEL: Well, you know, the old adage, you don't never ask a question if you don't know the answer. And I think they were afraid of what she was actually going to say. But I think that probably the read about her being overwhelmed is very true. It's incredibly stressful just being a witness on their own, but even in this trial especially. And I think that kind of emotion is a natural thing. It's almost a relief, I think, for the jury to be able to kind of go, OK, here's somebody who is being authentic, who's telling us she's nervous and is clearly conflicted. But what I also think is really interesting about this testimony, both sides are laying in the themes and the framework for ultimately what I think they're going to be arguing to the jury in closing argument here. So I think the testimony really did cut both ways. Both sides made some points with it. ABBY PHILLIP, CNN ANCHOR: Richard, this is Abby Phillip. I wonder what you think the jury makes of Trump as they are watching a Hope Hicks come to the stand or a David Pecker come to the stand. I mean, they all kind of tell of a certain kind of relationship with this sort of larger-than-life figure. What do you think that they're taking in from all of that? GABRIEL: Well, I think they're trying to really absorb what is this relationship, who is this man. I mean, the big question really is, is he actually going to testify in this case, because that's going to be significant. And is his testimony going to resemble the kind of public persona that we see with him, or is he going to exhibit a type of vulnerability, which I think this jury really needs to see in order for him to maintain credibility. So I think by laying all these pieces together, kind of bringing his inner circle, they are getting a portrait of sort of the relationships there. And to a certain extent, I think the defense is trying to humanize him to say, OK, there are people that really do care about him, that do care about his message, and aren't just sort of on some of his abuse that he can be known to dish out. So I think it's a very complex relationship that the jury is starting to get a picture of. COATES: Interesting to add one thing about it. I know as a jury consultant, it's not just about picking the jury, but it's also about giving advice and counsel to the strategy of who's going to cross- examine which witness. What's your tone going to be like? Who are you going to identify as hostile or otherwise? I mean, I was struck by the tone and the tenor of the conversation from the defense counsel, Emil Bove, his tone was conversational, it wasn't patronizing, it was soft- spoken without being condescending. That, to me, sounded like somebody had guided that. GABRIEL: Well, I think it's somebody who guided it, perhaps. But also, a seasoned attorney really understands they have to read the room. They have to really understand what is the tone here. He was probably prepared, OK, is she going to say some really damaging stuff, and do I need to go after her hard? But I think that because she exhibited this kind of vulnerability, because she did cry, he had to really backpedal and say, OK, I need to take a softer tone, I need to adjust it, I need to be somewhat sympathetic, I think I need to bring that out and then score my points maybe in a more nuanced way instead of attacking her, which could then lose credibility for me and the case. PHILLIP: Yeah, I mean, when you're dealing with a high-profile defendant, it's really tricky, that line between, you know, humanizing him and painting a picture that people don't believe about what kind of person he is. So it's interesting to see how they deal with that with the jury going forward. Richard Gabriel, thank you very much for joining us. GABRIEL: Thank you. COATES: You know, up next, Abby, one of Donald Trump's conspiracy theories is actually taking a hit right now as another Democratic lawmaker has been indicted. Plus, there's new CNN reporting tonight about Kristi Noem's chances of maybe being his running mate after she revealed killing her puppy. [22:40:05] (COMMERCIAL BREAK] PHILLIP: It's one of Donald Trump's most repeated conspiracy theories, that there is a deep state and it's unfairly targeting him because he's a Republican. But more proof tonight that that is baseless. COATES: If you need it, more proof is baseless. I mean, the Justice Department indicting another lawmaker, and guess what? It's a Democrat. This time, it's Democratic Congressman Henry Cuellar and his wife. They're accused of accepting nearly $600,000 in bribes from foreign entities, and the prosecution is saying they crafted a scheme with an oil and gas company controlled by another country. [22:45:03] Now, in a statement, Cuellar denied the accusations, writing, and I'm going to quote him here. "I want to be clear that both my wife and I are innocent of these allegations. Everything I have done in Congress has been to serve the people of South Texas". Now, Cuellar is actually the third lawmaker in the last nine months to be charged by the Department of Justice. PHILLIP; You may remember that back in September, Democratic Senator Bob Menendez and his wife were charged with conspiracy to commit bribery, honest services fraud, and extortion. He was also charged with a conspiracy for a public official to act as a foreign agent, and of course, exiled Republican Congressman George Santos. He was charged back in October with wire fraud and money laundering, among other things. The House voted to expel him from Congress in December. Remember, the president's own son, President Biden, his son is facing gun charges brought by President Biden's DOJ. Omarosa, Olivia, Jennifer, all back with us, along with political analyst and author of "The End of Race Politics", Coleman Hughes, and CNN political commentator, Jamal Simmons. First of all, what is going on in Congress? I don't even know who Jamal is. COATES: We don't have enough time for that answer, so just shorten it. PHILLIP: What is going on that these lawmakers feel like they can do anything, even approaching this, but to have two basically facing very similar charges with Menendez and Cuellar is really extraordinary? JAMAL SIMMONS, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: You know, I mean, this is Congress, right? There's a history of this. There's a long tradition of members of Congress who are getting in trouble, ad scam, you remember the banking crisis, the Keating, you know, senators. We've seen this before in Congress. So there's a little bit of fast and loose that sometimes gets played with some of the members, but we'll wait to see what happens with these cases because they got to get tried and we got to see all the evidence. So we don't really know what will happen. You know, I remember Bill Jefferson, who was a congressman that I knew from Louisiana who got caught with money in the freezer, right? So we all remember these cases of these members of Congress who've gotten in trouble. It's something that happens. COATES: That's where I keep all my money, cold, hard cash, right? Cold. I'm just kidding. Don't go to my freezer. Let me ask you, Jennifer, though, because, you know, this is a trial from Menendez happening like days from now. I know there's been a big focus on Trump, but his narrative, it's only happened to him. No one ever goes after a politician. It's only because he's a Republican and he's vying for this Oval Office yet again. But that trial starts in like 10 days. JENNIFER RODGERS, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: Starts in 10 days, right next door to the courthouse where Trump is being tried. Menendez is going to be tried in federal court, tried by, you know, Democratic-led DOJ prosecutors who charged this Democratic senator for very serious crimes. I mean, we talk about the charges against Trump, unlikely he'll see jail time even if convicted. Not true of Senator Menendez. These are serious charges and he will go to prison if he's convicted for sure. COATES: So why do you think, Coleman, the idea of this narrative that it has some staying power for a lot of people who look at these issues and say, OK, if Trump is saying that it's a two-tiered system of justice and, you know, frankly, I think we have a legal system in terms of a justice system from my personal experience having prosecuted cases, but it seems to only apply to people. There's an epiphany of thoughts, but he's saying it's the political issue specifically. Why is that continuing to resonate? COLEMAN HUGHES, CNN POLITICAL ANALYST: Well, I think it resonates partly because it's the stronger version of the argument is not that there's a partisan bias, Republican versus Democrat. The stronger version of the argument would be that Trump is Biden's political rival and it's Biden's DOJ. So the actual stronger counterargument to that would be the indictment of Hunter Biden, although there was argument about whether that was a sweetheart deal or not, and there were many people on both sides of that. That's a whole separate topic. But I think the stronger version is not the partisanship per se, which is a crazy argument. It is, is he prosecuting a political rival? COATES: And, you know, and that point, of course, we know that it's not Biden's White House or Biden's DOJ that is Fulton County or, of course, is the Manhattan D.A.'s office. But I wonder, I mean, Marissa, you have been in the campaign and you have a lot of political experience. Is Trump trying to capitalize on what he perceives as the ignorance? I don't mean this in a negative way, but the ignorance of the average voter who doesn't know how the political sausage is made, that they he wants them to believe this is how it all works. OMAROSA MANIGAULT NEWMAN, FORMER SR. ADVISER, TRUMP ADMINISTRATION: Oh, absolutely. And Laura, the irony is that he actually weaponized the Justice Department against me. I think as someone sitting up here, he actually took a file when you don't file on time and he magnified it so that they tried to come after me after I wrote my book. And he literally did it two weeks after the book came out. So he's accusing the other side of something that he's actually done over and over again throughout the four years that he was in office. So he is trying to exploit the ignorance of people who just don't know how things function in Washington. And he's playing victim. [22:50:00] RODGERS: And it's very strange. I mean, part of his -- SIMMONS: I'm sorry, it's people who don't know how things function in normal times. Right? When Donald Trump was president, Donald Trump is the one who weaponized these things. But, you know, ask Bill Clinton about Janet Reno. He wouldn't say that was Bill Clinton's Justice Department. That was Janet Reno's Justice Department. And she had independent counsels launched against the Clinton president. PHILLIP: And to be fair, it is unusual for the president, a former president, to have gone through all the trials and tribulations that he has. But that's not because it's been weaponized against him. It's because of his own actual conduct. RODGERS: He's running for president in this election, claiming that he's going to weaponize the Department of Justice. That's what's so strange about this as an attack on President Biden. His big pitch to voters, in part, is that he is going to seek retribution. He's going to spend his at least first term in the White House or first year in the White House of his second term prosecuting people who he feels are his political enemies, getting back at his law enforcement tormentors. This is an essential part of his pitch right now to voters. COATES: And by the way, Speaker Johnson is being criticized by Congressman Margie Taylor Greene, in part, because she's saying he had the audacity to fully fund the DOJ and she sees them as part and parcel to the weaponization. RODGERS: And it's very strange. This is the party of law and order. That's what Republicans like to say, right? In one breath, they're saying, back the blue, and they've kind of defaced the American flag for law enforcement. And in another breath, they're saying that the Justice Department is corrupt and out for them. It's very strange and sort of discordant. SIMMONS: Justice for thee, not for me. I think that's the way it is. COATES: Well, Jennifer, I mean, when you hear this, I mean, it strikes a chord with me when people, it's almost like the, since everyone's so concerned about injustice and inequity, then it should, every party and everyone should be thinking about all the ways to correct the justice system. But no one's doing that. It's only selectively as it relates to Donald Trump. And even that, to Abby's point, you know, he has been indicted not just by individual prosecutors, but grand juries were a part of this. RODGERS: Of course. Of course. And the two federal cases that are in play were brought by Jack Smith, a special counsel who was brought in to have a measure of independence from the Justice Department. People also don't understand how long these investigations take. I mean, he wants it to be like the moment that you bring a case, that's when it kind of sprung into being. These cases, I mean, the Hunter Biden case, of course, was started being investigated when Trump was president. These, you know, Menendez case, the same, like these things take years to bring. So this notion when he says, oh, they brought these cases against me after I declared I was running for president. He was under investigation for many, many months, if not years before that. These things are not just brought on a dime. COATES: Well, let's talk about Governor Kristi Noem. Can we for a second? Because it's the deep stakes time. And tomorrow there apparently is -- I'm going to call it the Hunger Games happening right now. It's going on. Whoever the odds are in their favor. Apparently, we're learning from reporting that he might be a little bit soured to Governor Kristi Noem, who had been right in there in the running continuously. Coleman, when you look at it, I mean, is it just the passage that she talks about? Having through her book, having killed a dog that she said could not have been trained? That's been gotten a lot of publicity. Or is it something else? COLEMAN: It's hard to imagine an issue that unites Americans more than loving dogs. And from -- from a lot of other countries' perspectives, they would say they're shocked the degree to which we love our dogs, because that's not a global phenomenon. But it's hard to imagine. Imagine a bigger screw up. If you're someone that's trying to gain the affections of -- it's not a partisan issue. Right. People, this is the one thing that can unite Americans on the right and the left. So it's just having that small meme in people's heads that she's killed a dog. And that's all people are going to know. They're not going to know. COATES: Jamal is smiling. He's smiling right now. Like, yes, that meme is good. COLEMAN: There might be some way to defend it. Right. If we had the full context. I don't know. But that's not what people are going to see. People are going to see woman killed dog. And that's just an absolute deal breaker. MANIGAULT NEWMAN: Well, she got attacked for all of the images of them hunting with game. And they were posing and taking selfies. So that kind of piles on. That's I mean, it's done for her. She's not going to be his vice president. Donald Trump doesn't like anyone whose negatives are bigger than his. And they're going to draw all of the attention if he did add her to the ticket. But I think she's finished. COATES: Jamal, what's the smart way for Democrats to, on the one hand, acknowledge this, but not overplay their hand? Because I always see a tendency to think that, you know, you get lulled into a false sense of smugness. SIMMONS: Listen, I think the first rule of any vice presidential pick is to do no harm. Right. And what we know now is that she would do the presidential candidate harm if she were brought on, because this would be one of the storylines. For the Democrats, Donald Trump is just so rich. The hardest part about it is there's so many things to choose from with Donald Trump that you can end up popping off all the time against all the things that are occurring. And then you find that nobody is really holding on to anything because there's so many issues that you put on the table that people don't know how they thread together. So the whole point of the campaign is to tell a narrative story. And each one of these incidents has to evoke as a piece of evidence for the thesis, not just a standalone star of its own. [22:55:06] COATES: Was that saying, Abby, if you see your competitor falling off a cliff, don't stop him. Everyone, thank you so much. I just paraphrase it. Our special primetime coverage continues next. (COMMERCIAL BREAK) Laura Coates Live Aired May 03, 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] (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) DONALD TRUMP, FORMER PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: Where is Hope? Where is Hope? Come here. (APPLAUSE) Come here. Come here, Hope. She's shy but not that shy. HOPE HICKS, FORMER WHITE HOUSE COMMUNICATIONS DIRECTOR: Thank you all so much. And thank you, President Trump. I have stage fright, so -- (LAUGHTER) (APPLAUSE) TRUMP: She's great. (END VIDEO CLIP) LAURA COATES, CNN HOST AND SENIOR LEGAL ANALYST: Well, from sharing the stage and stage fright to taking the stand, a nervous and emotional Hope Hicks faces her longtime boss and friend, Donald Trump, in court. Welcome to a special edition of LAURA COATES LIVE alongside Abby Phillip right here in New York. And it was a dramatic day in the Manhattan courtroom for Trump, who now has spent 11 days sitting and hearing testimony in his criminal trial. And, you know, today, I got to see it in person with my own eyes. And let me just tell you, when she was speaking, the president and the jury and myself were listening very intently. And, yes, she did cry on the stand. I'll tell you what happened there in just a moment. But what the defense is hoping the jury keeps in mind is the answer to the final question she was asked. Here it is from the transcript, "In 2017, while you were focused on your job at the White House, you didn't have anything to do with the business records of the Trump Organization 200 plus miles away from New York City, did you?" Her answer, "No." ABBY PHILLIP, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL CORRESPONDENT: So, Hicks there testified that she did not have knowledge of the falsification of business records. That's the actual charge against Trump, so that's really important. But as one of his closest days, she bolstered a key part of the prosecution's narrative, that Trump was involved in the deals to silence damaging stories before the 2016 election. Today, Hicks was asked about a 2018 conversation that she had with Trump after that "Wall Street Journal" story broke that had the Stormy Daniels hush money payments in the story. From the transcript, Hicks says, "President Trump was saying he spoke to Michael, and that Michael had paid this woman to protect him from a false allegation, and that -- you know -- Michael felt like it was his job to protect him, and that's what he was doing. And that he did it out of the kindness of his heart." COATES: Now, the question went on, and this part is really important to the prosecution because Hicks suggests that it's unlikely that's being generous, that Cohen did any of this on his own. Here was the question that is asked: "And did the idea that Mr. Cohen would have made a $130,000 payment to Stormy Daniels out of the kindness of his heart, was that consistent with your interactions with him up to that point?" Here was her answer, "I would say that would be out of character for Michael." "Why would it be out of character for Michael?", she was asked. "I didn't know Michael to be an especially charitable person, um, or selfless person." I want to bring in CNN political analyst Natasha Alford, also contributor for CNN, Leah Wright Rigueur, Washington correspondent for "New York" Magazine, Olivia Nuzzi, and former prosecutor and defense attorney, Imran Ansari. Also, here, legal analyst and former prosecutor, Jennifer Rodgers. I mean, it was a stunning moment, by the way. PHILLIP: Yeah. And you were there for it. COATES: Yes. PHILLIP: So, tell us about that moment, first of all, the one that everyone is talking about, the tears. COATES: I mean, I was there for it, and I was also here for it. And here's why. I was there to see what was happening. And, you know, I can't overstate this, Abby. I've been in so many trials, so many courtrooms. The fact that this was a drab routine state courtroom, the only thing different was Donald Trump was inside of it. When she walked into this courtroom and when she was testifying on the stand, my mind and my eyes went directly to what Trump was doing and what he was saying. And at the time that she started speaking, when first started crying, it was just the end of the prosecution's case and there were questions for her, followed by an otherwise really just benign question about trying to ask her about her work with the Trump Organization, at which point she sort of -- her body all of a sudden became all the more guarded, and she began to tremble. Her chin was trembling, her lips were trembling, and she turned her face away. It was the first time anyone realized there was an issue. In fact, the defense counsel sort of put his hands up for a second, almost in a, I don't know what happened just now. PHILLIP: What did I do? COATES: What did I do? PHILLIP: He hadn't even really done anything. COATES: He hadnt done anything at that point. And then she turned her face completely. And when she's turning her face away, there's already a box of tissues there. A bailiff is looking to her to try to help her. And he asked her, do you need to have a moment? She says, crying at this point, yes. And then they had her get off the stand. The jury at this point is completely honed in. They are locked in to figure out what she's doing, what's happening, looking over at Trump, and there's a clear view of his profile. And when she walks past him, she makes no eye contact, but Donald Trump looks up at her. His eyebrows are kind of raised as if in concern, like genuine concern for her. [23:05:01] She walks around him and kind of shrinks her body as she passes and leaves. And it was this moment I thought it read as authentic, but also, I wondered how the jury was going to see that moment. PHILLIP: Yeah. I mean, the prosecution in that moment -- I mean, that could go both ways. COATES: Yeah. PHILLIP: And you've talked about this. You -- you're a former prosecutor. COATES: Uh-hmm. PHILLIP: You would have handled maybe that aftermath a little bit differently, maybe asking her what was going through her mind. But that definitely could backfire with someone like Hope Hicks where her sympathies are not totally clear. COATES: Yeah, that's such a great point because you never want to ask a question you know the answer to. At the same token, it was just kind of left out there. When she came back, she said something, like, sorry about that and thank you for that. And then you guys, when she sat there, there was never a moment when the defense also said, so why were you so emotional? What -- what led that? Now, Jennifer, you've tried many cases, and you can imagine, on the one hand, it could have endeared him to the jury to suggest, look, I'm -- I obviously saw that you were crying. On the other hand, she could have something very helpful to the defense or very harmful. JENNIFER RODGERS, CNN LEGAL ANALYST, FORMER PROSECUTOR: Yeah, I don't think you want to ask the question. Maybe you say something, like, are you all right, can we proceed? You know, you want to show that you're human, but I don't think you want to get some speech about, you know, how sad it is for her because how great Trump is and so on and so forth. And I think it all -- COATES: Maybe the defense wants that, though. RODGERS: The defense does. But I think it all actually works well for the prosecution because she was so believable and authentic. And she did give the prosecution some good points today. I think they're going to be able to use some of the building blocks she gave them. So, I think they're probably happy with that one. COATES: You're nodding. You agree. IMRAN ANSARI, CRIMINAL DEFENSE ATTORNEY: You know, absolutely. I think, you know, Hope Hicks got off the stand, and a lot of people thought she may be a mixed bag in terms of the testimony she gave. Some helpful for the defense and Trump. But largely, when you take it a look back and you look at her testimony and see what the prosecution needs to prove at the end of the day in this case, it's going to be helpful testimony for the prosecution. And the most important part, she came off as credible. Michael Cohen is going to come into that courtroom and be the witness that's going to get beaten up on credibility. She came across as credible because you didn't really know if she is still sympathetic with Trump in some way. She's there on a subpoena, not testifying willfully for the prosecution but by way of a subpoena, and I think that gives her testimony credibility. COATES: Olivia, take us back, though. For many people -- I mean, I had never heard her actually speak before today. I mean -- very few. And there was that moment on the stage, of course, we know. But who was she to Trump when they were still in contact? OLIVIA NUZZI, WASHINGTON CORRESPONDENT, NEW YORK MAGAZINE: She was the senior most communications official. She was not the press secretary. So, she was never out there speaking for the administration, speaking for the campaign on camera. She has never appeared on camera other than when she's on her way to testify or, you know, be a part of some sort of investigation or a trial like today. And she was sort of someone who was known to the press corps who covered Trump and known to Trump world and known among people who sort of treat MAGA as like, you know, I don't know, like the "Grateful Dead" or something that are familiar with all the different characters. (LAUGHTER) COATES: (INAUDIBLE) all of a sudden? Hold on. What is happening? NUZZI: (INAUDIBLE) actually. But they -- but they -- she was not someone who is known to kind of passive viewers and consumers of news. And she was very powerful. She's very close to him, very close to the family. The way into the Trump world was through the Trump Organization, through Ivanka Trump. And she was someone who was very trusted and who kind of proved how trustworthy she was over years and years. And the campaign was very small in 2016, in the beginning, before he got nomination, before that seemed inevitable. They were first a laughingstock. And it was really -- it was not a first-choice campaign for like top staffers in the right-wing political world. It was staffed by people with kind of seedy backgrounds, not a lot of traditional political experience. And in the case of Hope Hicks and several others, really no political experience. PHILLIP: The real reason that the -- one of the main reasons of -- the prosecution needed her in this case, needed her today, was to take us back to the Access Hollywood moment for the campaign, and to take us there, immerse us in what it was would have been like in Trump world at that time, when that tape came down, and how that changed everything, and how, if anything, had come after that, like a Stormy Daniels allegation. What that would have been like? Was she effective? NATASHA ALFORD, CNN POLITICAL ANALYST: Yeah. I mean, this -- this question, how's it playing, right? She brought that up. She showed that Donald Trump was constantly asking, how am I looking, right? How are these stories impacting people? And I know very little shocks us these days, but that Access Hollywood tape was pretty disgusting, right? Think of all the women who came out during the Women's March wearing those hats because of what he said. And so, Donald Trump doesn't apologize for much, but this was the one instance in which he actually did issue an apology, of course, after deflecting, saying, you know, all this is just locker room talk. But eventually, he had to give a very sincere apology because he knew just how badly this has impacted -- [23:10:03] COATES: Let's actually play that moment just for my -- I mean, people have amnesia after all these years. But he actually did apologize. They actually played it in court today. let's listen to this. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) TRUMP: Anyone who knows me knows these words don't reflect who I am. I said it. I was wrong, and I apologize. (END VIDEO CLIP) COATES: What could have been more authentic than that, Abby? (LAUGHTER) PHILLIP: I apologize. I mean -- I can probably count on -- UNKNOWN: (INAUDIBLE). PHILLIP: -- one hand the number of times that he's ever used that phrase. But he did in that moment, which really tells you everything you need to know about how important it was. LEAH WRIGHT RIGUEUR, CNN CONTRIBUTOR: Well, it tells you that he was terrified, and he was -- it also tells you that the campaign really thought that this was it, that it was over. You know, one of the things that came out in court, that has come out -- that has also come out is that Trump wasn't just terrified about the effect that it would have on his political campaign, he was worried about Melania. He said, have I hurt Melania? What would she do? What will -- how will this -- how will this affect her? But also, what will her response be? How will the world see me? How will women see me? NUZZI: That's the key thing, what will her response be? I have a very hard time believing, having covered Donald Trump for almost a decade now, that he was worried, have I hurt Melania? You know, if she is embarrassed, because he was worried about his relationship or worried about her as a human being. But the optics of having your wife very angry at you, she did take a backseat on the campaign going forward. It did take her a very long time to come to Washington. We know that Karen McDougal in particular really upset her. I remember I was profiling her. I ended up never publishing the piece. But for months and in that time, "New York" magazine put Stormy Daniels on the cover in a women in power issue, and it was like this very beautiful portrait of Stormy Daniels, and I had done the interview, and the profile fell apart, the access fell apart, and I learned it was because Melania was so devastated to see Stormy Daniels in this sort, of you know, valorized way on a magazine cover. COATES: We know it was less than elegant and was -- Michael Cohen is being introduced in almost every aspect of this trial. I mean, he is like -- he might as well be the glass of water next to every witness. And they drink from this cup, and they go, oh, it's time to mention Michael Cohen, because look at the words that he has been described about him so far. And today was no exception. I mean, Mr. Fix It, he was somebody -- I think Hope Hicks said today, they called him "tough the fixer" because he broke it first. And then there was this moment today where she said, "I used to say that he liked to call himself 'a fixer' or 'Mr. Fix It,' and it was only because he first broke it that he was able to come and fix it." Now, this caused laughter in the courtroom. She was laughing at this point in time. Others were laughing. And the defense was probably, like, yes, tell me more, tell me more about this. What is the impact of now somebody, as you say, who is read as authentic before a jury again previewing the fact that she, too, does not take Cohen, well, seriously? RODGERS: It's fine. It is fine with the prosecutors. And here's why. Prosecutors are used to having dirt bags be their cooperating witnesses, right? You have murderers, you know, robbers, rapists, etc. on the stand, and what you say to the jury is, listen, you may not like this guy, but I'm going to tell you why you should believe this guy, right? It's all the corroboration. It's what the other witnesses say. It's the documents, etc. And one of the things that Hope Hicks did today, which was good for prosecutors, is she also put Michael Cohen in the middle of this. She said Michael Cohen was talking to Trump about this stuff. He was talking to David Pecker. You know, he -- you know, she could take us through the timeline from the campaign's view of how all this happened and how the narrative changed. You know, the first thing out was affair never happened, payoff never happened. Then it was, okay, well, the payoff never happened. Then it was, okay, well, the payoff happened but Michael Cohen didn't and I didn't do it. I mean, she took us through all of that, dishonest all of that was, and how Michael Cohen was the one who would have known. And then the last thing that's so helpful is, can you imagine that Michael Cohen really would have painted himself without Trump knowing? She says, nope, can't imagine that. That's golden. COATES: Would you have spun that? You've been defense counsel, as a prosecutor as well, but would you spun that to suggest that he wouldn't have done it for any reason other than not maybe direction of Trump but self-gain? Remember, we've heard testimony that he says he was shocked that he wasn't going to Washington, D.C. after all that he has done, wanting to be part of the administration. Could you see the defense counsel saying, well, yeah, he did it for Trump because he wanted to be benefited in the end? ANSARI: Right. I mean, I think that would be a good point that the defense can make when you're really facing this testimony about Michael Cohen, him not being someone who's looking out for himself but rather someone who's a yes-man for Trump. That's the way you're going to spin that testimony in many ways, right? Look, at the end of the day, these are building blocks that the prosecution is putting before this jury. They've embraced all the bad about Michael Cohen because they have to. There's no escaping that. And I think Hope Hicks's testimony today is just one block in the puzzle that the prosecution is putting together on a very difficult indictment, a difficult indictment that many people are critical of. [23:15:00] But I think they're putting forward the evidence, and the defense will have to come forward with arguments like that when facing a (INAUDIBLE) like Michael Cohen. NUZZI: I want to say something about Michael Cohen. People keep talking about how, oh, this can be so difficult for the prosecution because he's a known liar. He was convicted of lying. This is going to be sort of a slam dunk for the defense. And I don't really agree with that. He has spent the last several years becoming the sort of resistant celebrity explaining himself and getting kind of cerebral about it and philosophical about it. And if you watch him in his many interviews, he has become friends with Stormy Daniels, they've been on each other's podcasts, he's sort of like a lot of former Trump aides just in public unpacking why he did it, why he felt that way about Donald Trump, why he was willing to lie for him, and it has been very interesting to behold, but it does not read as false at all. COATES: What he's also, though -- I mean, that's from a prosecutor standpoint, they do not want every instance to be able to be compared against what he might say on the stand. And the defense is going to say and suggest, he may be honest, but he also does not like being the only person punished compared to Donald Trump. So, standby, it's a great point, everyone. I had a deeper look into the connection between Trump and Hope Hicks from someone who worked within the Trump administration. Olivia Troye says this is both their worst nightmares, and she's next. (COMMERCIAL BREAK) [23:20:00] (COMMERCIAL BREAK) COATES: Hope Hicks was described by some as essentially another member of Trump's family. So, just how close were Hope Hicks and Donald Trump during their time in the White House and maybe even before? To dig deeper on that very question, I want to bring in Olivia Troye. She's a former Homeland Security and COVID Task Force advisor to Vice President Mike Pence, who also worked very closely with Trump and Hicks. Olivia, good to see you. I mean, this was a day that people had been anticipating, a witness that could maybe move the needle further along, get people closer to the actual charges, someone who was known. And right as Trump's attorney was about to begin cross-examining her, she started tearing up. I mean, the court took a break. And you know her very well. What was going through your mind when you heard this? OLIVIA TROYE, FORMER HOMELAND SECURITY AND COVID TASK FORCE ADVISER TO VICE PRESIDENT MIKE PENCE: Quite honestly, I -- you know, I tried to put myself in her shoes in the moment. And I thought about Hope. And I had seen her interactions in the White House. I had seen my own former boss interact with her. This is a very inner circle trusted colleague. And I think -- you know, it's hard to know what she was feeling in the moment. But I have to say, like, it got to be incredibly hard to sit there and testify in a moment where this is not where you ever wanted to be. I think that she thought that she had, you know, gotten away sort of unscathed. She was in the inner circle and she made it. And now, here she finds herself testifying before him and trying to, you know, abide by the fact that she got a subpoena and she's in the court and she's trying to be factual, but also trying to sort of navigate the fact that these are her people. This is a circle that embraced her. This is a circle that she worked very closely with. So, you know, I don't know. At the moment, I thought, is she sort of kind of realizing the moment that she is in, and what she is saying, and she knows that part of it could be hurtful to him? She doesn't want to be doing this. She never sought spotlight. She didn't -- she didn't seek to be anti-trump. Right, Laura? There are many of us that have spoken out. She has not. She has not publicly attacked him. She sorts of has stayed behind the scenes. And so, also, I think to think, like, what am I doing? How did I get here? What is happening right now? And I think, honestly, when you look at her, I think about so many other colleagues that were in the circle and who remain in the circle. And I think of what a prime example of how eventually, when you're in this circle, eventually, you get called up, and it turns on you. COATES: Well, you know, I wonder if there's any turning back in that respect. But, you know, there was a moment that she was asked whether she felt that she had the trust and respect of Mr. Trump, which is how she referred to him almost exclusively until she called him President Trump. And she said, yes, she felt that she did have his trust and his respect. Tell me what you witnessed between the two. Why was Trump so trusting of her? TROYE: It was -- I think she was unwavering. I think she became a confidante. I think he also took her under his wing. I think he was a mentor to her, right? I mean, he pretty much brought her into his umbrella. I think he cultivated her career from what we've seen in many ways. And from what I saw, I mean, he really was deferential to her. He would look across the room. Sometimes, there'd be other press secretaries in the room. When she wasn't the press secretary, I was there in 2020, where he would bypass everyone and say, Hope, what do you think? And she was very soft-spoken. She's very -- she had a very quiet demeanor about her, but very confident. And, you know, there were -- these are meetings where there are cabinet officials and people that are serving in these roles, and he would always turn to her and say, Hope, your opinion. So, he -- it was a sort of dynamic where there was a very tight bond between them. And if you wanted to know how he was going to react to things or what -- how we are going to navigate him, like, I'm going to be fully honest and transparent here, give some insight that I probably never shared, when I needed to know how to navigate Trump to help Mike Pence in some of the most challenging situations that we faced, Hope Hicks knew the approach. [23:25:02] COATES: Hmm. Well, I guess that is interesting to think about, her as the main gatekeeper and when to almost be the Trump whisperer, even given the fact how soft-spoken she appeared to be in this context. It actually doesn't surprise me as well to know that he would have relied on who he believed was in his inner circle. Remember, there was that moment through testimony, I think, that David Pecker was saying that, you know, he was sitting in a meeting with Mike Pompeo, who would eventually take on the role he did in the administration, with James Comey, the head of the FBI, and Trump turns to them and says, this is David Pecker, he runs the "National Enquirer," he knows more than any of you. No one laughed because they were thinking, what is going on here? But I can see this happening. Also, I want to ask you about Sarah Huckabee Sanders, because there was earlier testimony, speaking of David Pecker, that said that Hicks was on a call with then press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders, discussing extending the hush money payment to Karen McDougal. Pecker said that they thought it was a good idea. When you hear that, was that unethical for White House employees to be talking about that? TROYE: I mean, I think so, right? I mean, why are these people involved in the situation? How are they navigating the media like this? I mean, it just goes to show the level of ties that they had in some of these circles and where their focus was and what they were willing to do. There were no boundaries. There were no boundaries in their demeanor and what they were doing. And I think, again, you know, while we're trying -- while we're talking about something that happened on the campaign, I think this is just a very clear example of the inner workings of this mechanism and this machine and what this effort really was. COATES: And it's important to remember that she said that they hadn't spoken since 2022. And was this this moment -- I just want to play, I know we have no time, but she testified to January 6th Committee, I want people to remember this, that she did not believe the election lies. And listen to what she said just to keep us in mind about the nature of their relationship after this. Listen. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) HICKS: I was becoming increasingly concerned that we were damaging -- we were damaging his legacy. UNKNOWN (voice-over): What did the president say in response to what you just described? HICKS: He said something along the lines of, you know, nobody will care about my legacy if I lose. So, that won't matter. The only thing that matters is winning. (END VIDEO CLIP) COATES: Undoubtedly, Olivia, that must have been in his mind as he heard somebody he trusted speaking today now in a Manhattan courtroom. Really important to have your perspective tonight. Thank you so much. TROYE: Thanks for having me. COATES: Up next, there was a win today for Donald Trump in court, and it does involve what the jury actually cannot hear about Trump's gag order violations. Plus, little Marco no more. The new reporting on Senator Marco Rubio's chances now in the Trump veefsteaks. (COMMERCIAL BREAK) [23:30:00] (COMMERCIAL BREAK) PHILLIP: The former president did secure one victory today in court. The prosecution asking Judge Merchan, if Trump were to testify, could they bring up Trump's repeated violations of the gag order? Now, Trump side objected, arguing that the judge would essentially be prejudicing the jury by allowing that. COATES: You know what? Judge Merchan actually agreed with that. He said, "I think for a jury to hear that this court, the same judge that is presiding over this case has found Mr. Trump to be in contempt on this case, I think would be so prejudicial, it would be very, very difficult for a jury to look past that. So, I agree with Mr. Blanche, and I am going to deny the people's application to go into that." The panel is back with us here. And just more broadly, I mean, Natasha, we've been talking about this in the past. If he gets fined $1,000, he can afford it. He -- they're not asking for jail time, so he won't get stepped back. ALFORD: Uh-hmm. COATES: And now, this jury won't hear about it. I mean, that's a win- win all around in that context. ALFORD: Yeah, it's kind of like a nothing burger. But I think this fits into Donald Trump's strategy to make himself the victim in every single situation, right? So even if this is not that significant, it's this idea that he's being persecuted. And he's speaking to his base. He's speaking to his voters. This works for him. COATES: And Leah, that increases the chances, by the way. It takes away the ability to say, this judge is so against me all the time. We've seen at least more than one ruling now where the judge has not indicated some bias against him. Can -- just looking at the broader picture of how Trump is approaching the legal or the justice system, how does this factor in? RIGUEUR: So, I think there are a couple of things that are -- that we can look at for here, which is that on the one hand, the judge is showing, you know, I'm not -- I don't -- I'm actually objective and I'm fair, and I'm saying that I think this is -- this is prejudicial, right? But it also means that it removes his ability. It removes Donald Trump's ability, I think, to accuse the judge of being biased, of being prejudicial outside in this larger -- this larger arena, public relations arena. So, in essence, it doesn't do very much for MAGA world, right? He can paint himself as a victim, but he can't paint himself that much as a victim. What I do think it does, though, is it actually motivates, I think, people watching outside of this, so it allows, for example, the press to investigate and say, well, how is this being treated? How can we analyze the different components? But certainly, for the left, for Democrats, this is another example of the kind of, I think, preferential treatment that Trump is getting and is experiencing. [23:35:08] And while it may be right under the law for the larger picture of how this campaign is being run, people can point and say, this is a man who has not been given -- who hasn't been treated unfairly. He's actually been treated quite fairly. This is just another example of a president who is under scrutiny for a criminal trial, and we should be investigating that. PHILLIP: I don't want to say that Judge Merchan has gone out of his way to be fair or even-handed with Trump, but he certainly has really tried to take the temperature down at various points. Even today, Trump made his statements yesterday about how he's not being allowed to testify. And the judge just kind of calmly said, just so you know, just want to make sure you're aware -- (LAUGHTER) -- you have rights here, you can testify. Trump is poking the bear in a situation where he really doesn't need to. The judge is treating him, frankly, with kid gloves. ANSARI: Yeah, I think it's really interesting to see the dynamic between Donald Trump and Judge Merchan because I think Donald Trump is constantly trying to bait him to get him to make a ruling, which he could go, then out on Truth Social and say, look, Judge Merchan is completely biased. I think he's ultimately totally aware of that, Judge Merchan, and that's why he's so careful in what he's saying in court, including what you said, Abby, this morning about really reacting to what Trump said outside of court, saying, listen, the gag order is not going to prevent you from testifying, and then going further with that with the ruling later and saying, listen, that's not coming. You know, that's not going to be a bad act, that you could question this witness on if he takes the stand. I think Judge Merchan is being very careful about his rulings. NUZZI: What happens in that courtroom, first of all, there are no cameras as we know. So that, I think, helps Donald Trump create his own reality about this trial. It almost doesn't matter. His story is going to be his story no matter what Judge Merchan decides to do, no matter what he says. He will still be telling his supporters exactly what he wants to tell them, whether or not it has any basis in reality. I think Judge Merchan is probably going to learn something that a lot of people who've dealt with Donald Trump for a long time already know, which is it doesn't matter how by the book you are, it doesn't matter how fair you are, it has no effect whatsoever on Donald Trump's behavior or on his narrative about his interactions with you. COATES: And by the way, sitting in the courtroom, he -- this judge was not like a bombastic, charismatic person. He was almost blending in, not -- I'm not being pejorative at all, but he was not the focus, which is what a judge should not be. RODGERS: Yeah, but, you know, in some ways, there's no bigger power play than being like, you know what, you can say what you want, like I don't really care. And Alvin Bragg is in the same boat. He didn't even ask to be part of the gag order, right? They're like, he can say what he wants and I don't really care. And, you know, the judge -- judges are often, usually, actually, conservative, meaning cautious small C conservative in these rulings because they don't want to be overturned on appeal. And so, when you think about what am I going to do, what am I going to let them cross this guy on, you want to kind of pull it back a little bit from a prosecutor. Prosecutors get a little greedy sometimes with these things. And the judge is, like, listen, I'm going to protect this record. One of his huge goals here is protecting this record even from the prosecutors who might want a little too much. I think Merchan is doing a great job of that, too. PHILLIP: Yeah, he's anticipating what could come, which is this is a very litigious defendant. There are going to be appeals, and he's going to drag this out as much as possible. Stand by, everyone. Trump's veepstakes are heating up this weekend as VP hopefuls go down to Mar-a-Lago to attend a fundraiser. Next, how a potential pick of Marco Rubio could spark a constitutional crisis. Plus, South Dakota's governor, Kristi Noem, forced to backpedal over some of the details in her new memoir. (COMMERCIAL BREAK) [23:40:00] (COMMERCIAL BREAK) PHILLIP: Call it the VP version of "The Apprentice" or "The Hunger Games." This weekend, some of the Republicans on Donald Trump's short list will attend a fundraiser over at Mar-a-Lago with Republican donors. So, as Ron DeSantis put it, who will bend down and kiss the ring? Well, tonight, there are some signs that Florida Senator Marco Rubio could be rising to the top of the pack. But a Trump Rubio ticket could face a surprising hurdle, a constitutional one. "The Bulwark" reports that Trump knows all about it. He says -- quote -- "Marco has this residency problem." Joining me now is the author of that story and an authority on Florida politics, "The Bulwark" national politics reporter, Marc Caputo. So, Marc, back in 2016, there was a lot of drama with Rubio. Obviously, Trump called him, and he called Trump an embarrassment, a con artist, the most vulgar person to ever aspire to the presidency. Why is Trump looking at Marco Rubio all of a sudden again? MARC CAPUTO, NATIONAL POLITICS REPORTER, THE BULWARK: Well, the two of them grew very close when Trump became president and Rubio began to shape Latin-American policy. And a friendship and trust blossomed between the two of them. But the reality is Donald Trump needs to choose a running mate, and Marco Rubio, on paper, outside of the residency issue, and yeah, the residency issue is a big deal, makes a lot of sense. PHILLIP: So, Rubio -- a Trump advisor told you that Rubio can almost smell the naval observatory. That is where the vice president lives. Is Rubio really wanting this job? I mean, I have to believe that he doesn't -- he's not fully on board with Donald Trump after all that has transpired with them. CAPUTO: Well, that's a good question. [23:45:00] I haven't had opportunity to ask him that. But what I can say is that Rubio did run for president. And if he were elevated to Trump's ticket, and if Trump won, he'd be a heart of the -- heartbeat away from the presidency, something he saw before and something he might seek again, anyway. And the president will be a one-termer. He's 77 years old. He has a pension for eating Big Macs a lot. So, the question is, how long is that 77-year-old got to serve fully? Now, obviously, the same question surrounds Joe Biden. In fact, the question is presented a little more about him. Sorry to be morbid about it. But these are considerations people think about. Well, you know, overall, I think even if, you know, Trump were 45, Rubio and most other politicians when granted the opportunity to be the number two- person guy, gal, whatever you want to say, in the nation's power structure for politics, they're going to take it. And there's a lot of signs from people who know Rubio say, yeah, look, they'll probably change residencies -- residences if he -- to do this, to comply with the 12th Amendment of the Constitution. PHILLIP: Well -- CAPUTO: And if Trump wants to resign early, you might do that. PHILLIP: Well, break that down for us a little bit because this idea of the 12th Amendment issue, they're both Florida residents which is a bit of a constitutional problem. CAPUTO: Right. PHILLIP: The 12th Amendment says that the president and the vice president -- quote -- shall not be an inhabitant of the same state. That is a very specific thing, but it's in the Constitution. So, what is he going to do? I mean, you think he would step down from the Senate. That would create another opening, another active Senate race in battleground Florida. Are they seriously considering this? CAPUTO: From what I understand, yes. The answer to that is yes. Now, there are two things here. One, the Constitution says that they can't inhabit the same state when the electors needed to choose and to cast their ballots for the president and vice president. So, this happened with Dick Cheney in 2000 with George Bush. They both lived in Texas. Cheney changed his residence. The extra wrinkle here is Donald Trump, from what I'm told, doesn't want Ron DeSantis to get a Senate pick and to appoint for a long-term time the replacement to replace Marco Rubio. So, if that's the case, and these are ifs, and there's a lot of ifs and buts and trap doors here, if Rubio is chosen and if Donald Trump doesn't want Ron DeSantis to get the pick, he'll want to -- he'll want Rubio to announce that he's resigning sooner so that it triggers an election this November -- PHILLIP: Hmm. CAPUTO: -- and that would give Florida Senate seats that are open. We haven't had a double Senate -- a double header Senate race in Florida since 1936. I wasn't around then, but it would be extremely unorthodox, but this is Donald Trump we're talking. PHILLIP: Marc, this is a juicy story. It's a lot of drama with Trump always and this is no different. Thank you for -- thank you for bringing that to us. CAPUTO: Thanks, Abby. PHILLIP: And we're back here with the panel here. Harry Enten is here, joining us, senior data reporter. (LAUGHTER) HARRY ENTEN, CNN SENIOR DATA REPORTER: I'm here. It's only 11:47. Let's go. (LAUGHTER) PHILLIP: So, can I quiz you like what's -- what are -- what are the stats say about senators becoming vice presidents? ENTEN: I believe we have one in the White House right now who was formerly a vice president, formerly -- PHILLIP: So, his chances -- you're saying his chances are pretty good? ENTEN: I'm not saying his chances are pretty good. I have no idea from day to day what goes on in Donald Trump's head, all right? I don't think any of us do. If we did, we'd all go to Vegas and bet the numbers on the roulette wheel. But what I can tell you, you know, if you look at the vice presidents, look, I know at this particular point who's not on that list, short list, anymore. It is Kristi Noem. Apparently, Trump does not want someone who shoots dogs in their spare time. But what I can also tell you is when we look essentially at VPs and understanding who's strong, who is weak, I like to look at their home state performance, the voters who know them best. Did they outperform basically match or underperform Donald Trump in their last election cycle? So, we have a few folks that we can kind of go through. Marco Rubio vastly outperformed Trump's baseline in 2022, all right? Well, Look, Tim Scott did the same in his last Senate race. Doug Burgum basically matched the Trump baseline in the state of North Dakota. Interestingly enough, J.D. Vance, who was just on our network the other night with Kaitlan Collins, actually underperformed the Trump baseline in 2022 despite the fact that he ran in a more favorable republican year. And, you know, based upon that performance that he gave in that interview, I'm not exactly surprised that he, in fact, did so. So, at this particular point, if Trump is trying to basically pick a safe pick, I go with the first three on that list at this particular time. PHILLIP: Are you surprised that there are no women? I mean, Kristi Noem, maybe she's off. UNKNOWN: (INAUDIBLE). PHILLIP: No, but, I mean -- (LAUGHTER) -- people had said that maybe he would try to inoculate himself from his suburban woman problem, which is huge, by picking a woman. And it seems like the idea of a woman being on the pick has really fallen down. [23:50:01] NUZZI: I would say he does like an element of surprise. I remember in 2016, he got very annoyed when people started reporting about the ins and outs of the behind the scenes machinations while they were selecting a vice president. And it became -- I mean, it was not a crazy thing to say, if something got reported, even if it were true, it might just kill that potential nominee back then. PHILLIP: Yeah. NUZZI: I remember talking to Newt Gingrich, who still thought that he might be the vice president in minutes after Mike Pence was announced, and he was just crushed. And I think you just can't discount the fact that this is a reality show host still and he likes the element of surprise. PHILLIP: His campaign -- UNKNOWN: (INAUDIBLE) right now. PHILLIP: His campaign manager -- UNKNOWN: Everything is an audition. COATES: I mean, I don't know how often you guys have seen like crazy town knocked and said, I want in. But people -- haven't you seen the number -- I mean, how he treated his vice presidents in the past? UNKNOWN: That's right. COATES: I mean -- UNKNOWN: That's right. UNKNOWN: They wanted to hang him. COATES: The they did. And we know what that -- what problems that caused with Vice President Mike Pence. But are you surprised at all that there are people -- I mean, obviously, yes, it's a heartbeat away from the presidency, there is the stature of the position, I understand all that, but a lot comes with this. ALFORD: It does, but you see the joy on Tim Scott's face as he's like Donald Trump's number one cheerleader. You know, Elise Stefanik has made herself, um, you know, his number one defender even in the face of, you know, impeachment. I mean, I think that he wants somebody who is loyal, who will not upstage him, and in those moments where you have to make an ethical decision like Mike Pence did, right, to say I will not, you know, decertify or prevent this vote from going forward, this election from being official, um, Mike Pence had his own mind, and Donald Trump doesn't really like that. So, there's always somebody who's willing to kind of be a flunky, and I think he's going to need that, but someone who also adds something to his campaign. RIGUEUR: So, there's also the question -- I think the question of loyalty is incredibly important. loyalty above all else particularly given the fallout from the 2020 election and with Mike Pence. But there's also the point, I think, that Natasha made about he can't have somebody that's going to upstage him. And I would think very carefully about somebody like Marco Rubio who does have the potential to upstage Donald Trump, and especially in his eagerness to be vice president and to be one heartbeat away from the -- from the presidency, has made it quite obvious that this is something -- this is the job he really wants to have. Um, I think we also have to think about what is the -- and this is -- this is going to sound a little bit crazy but it's late at night, so I'm going to go ahead and say -- (LAUGHTER) -- the aesthetics of the kind of pick that Donald Trump wants. Tim Scott doesn't necessarily have the aesthetics in terms of, is he married, we know he's engaged, but also in how he presents himself, right? PHILLIP: He could be married. RIGUEUR: He could be married -- PHILLIP: By November. RIGUEUR: -- but it's something that is a question and a concern in Trump world that we have to take seriously as well. COATES: By the way, um, any one of these people who might be chosen is going to have to debate Kamala Harris, vice president. I mean, assuming this is debate and that's a big assumption right now. But, um, how does she stack up in terms of maybe the popularity or how people view this? ENTEN: Yeah. I mean, you know, Joe Biden, at this particular point going into reelection, is one of -- in one of the weakest positions for a president, uh, at this particular time. And Vice President Harris is also in a very weak position if you look at the polls. In fact, I went back and looked at vice president's -- vice president's popularity at this point in the presidential term. The only person who's on the same level as her is Dan Quayle back in 1992. Whenever you're comparing a VP to Dan Quayle, you know you're in poor position. So, I'm not exactly concerned if I'm one of these Republican VPs taking on Vice President Harris. But, you know, I guess the good news for Vice President Harris is most people don't really vote for the VP anyway because remember, Dan Quayle managed to get elected in the first place. So, if he could be elected to VP, then anyone could be elected as VP. ALFORD: What I will say, though, is that in those debate moments, she is pretty fierce. She does have these moments that, you know, the audience remembers. I remember when she went toe-to-toe with Mike Pence. So, I try to imagine someone like a -- you know, Burgum sitting across from Kamala Harris being memorable. It's kind of -- I feel like he's a little bland, you know. PHILLIP: It's a good point because it wasn't just the fly that everybody -- UNKNOWN: It wasn't just the fly. PHILLIP: It wasn't just the fly that made that debate. She performed well on the debate stage. She preps for this stuff. I do think -- I mean, the first rule of vice-presidential picks, though, is do no harm, right? ENTEN: Keep it calm. PHILLIP: I mean, it is really not about any electoral anything. It's just don't screw anything up. COATES: But you also want -- I mean, especially, we know, you mentioned the woman problem for Trump, perhaps. How about there is all this polling that suggests that Black men are, um, wavering in their support for President Biden? Enter Tim Scott. I know we've been talking about this off -- you know, offline in different ways. I mean, Sunny Hostin was on "The View," our colleague formerly at CNN, and she was speaking about Senator Tim Scott as potentially someone, well, let's have her say it. [23:55:03] (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) SUNNY HOSTIN, CO-HOST OF "THE VIEW," ABC NEWS SENIOR LEGAL CORRESPONDENT AND ANALYST: Just to speak for African-American voters, if anyone thinks that Tim Scott is such -- (LAUGHTER) -- okay? The audience is cracking up. Anyone who thinks that Tim Scott is going to bring over a bunch of Black men, they really need to just get with it because Tim Scott is the only African-American senator in the Republican Party for a reason. (END VIDEO CLIP) ENTEN: I would just say this. He may not bring over a ton of Black men, but how close was that 2020 election if we're just talking about a small percentage? I remember when Al Gore picked Joe Lieberman back in 2000, the first Jewish VP nominee, and what happened? He was able to scrounge a few extra Jewish votes and it nearly won Al Gore the state of Florida because he did so well in Palm Beach and Broward County. RIGUEUR: But that's not who Tim Scott is for. In fact, if we look at the numbers, Black voters actually punish Tim Scott more so than they punish Republican -- white Republican voters who hold similar politics, right? They're punishing him because he's Black. A Tim Scott pick is for white moderate voters who are deeply uncomfortable with the racial politics of the Trump administration. That's the kind of asset that he brings in. That's where he would be really, I think, incredibly important. PHILLIP: I tend to agree with you on that one. COATES: Well, we'll see what happens on his name tag tomorrow at the veepstakes at Mar-a-Lago. Thank you, everyone, and thanks so much for watching. PHILLIP: Our coverage continues with "ANDERSON COOPER 360." That's next. (COMMERCIAL BREAK) [00:00:00] (COMMERCIAL BREAK)