Anderson Cooper 360 Degrees Aired May 07, 2024 - 20:00 ET THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED. [20:00:00] … ANDERSON COOPER, CNN HOST: Good evening and welcome to our special continuing primetime coverage of the Trump hush money trial. Day 13 saw Stormy Daniels take the stand. It saw the defense move for mistrial over some of what she said and then launched into their cross-examination which is expected to continue on Thursday when the trial resumes. But before getting into the nuts and bolts of what transpired today, it's hard not to stop and consider that this is happening at all. A former president of the United States running for president again confronted in court by the porn star whose silence he's accused of buying and covering up so that he could become president the first time around. Tonight, we'll bring you her testimony in great detail to the relationship she says they had. The effect prosecutors hope it will have on the case and defense attempts to undermine it, which began early on with the following exchange she had with Trump attorney Susan Necheles who asked her, "Am I correct that you hate President Trump?" To which Daniels replied, "Yes." As for the former president, he did not have a single word to say about Stormy Daniels at the end of the day, but had plenty to say about the case itself. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) DONALD TRUMP, FORMER PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: So this was a very big day, a very revealing day. As you see, the case is totally falling apart. They have nothing on books and records and even something that should bear very little relationship to the case. It's just a disaster for the DA, for the Soros-backed DA. It's a disaster. (END VIDEO CLIP) COOPER: Well, just for reference, George Soros is the billionaire who backs liberal causes and is a frequent target of Republicans and the far right. According to CNN fact checker Daniel Dale, he has not donated to DA Alvin Bragg's campaign, but did give money to a political committee which did support Bragg. I want to bring in the panel tonight, New York defense attorney, Arthur Aidala, bestselling author and former federal prosecutor Jeffrey Toobin, my fellow CNN primetime anchors Abby Phillip, Kaitlan Collins and Laura Coates. Kaitlan was in the court today and so was CNN's Kara Scannell, who joins us as well. So let's start off with both of you. Kara, what was it like? KARA SCANNELL, CNN CORRESPONDENT: I mean, I thought there were so many different moments because so many different things happened today. There was Stormy Daniels when being questioned by the prosecutors and she was almost gossiping with her friends, telling her story, looking at the jury a lot, engaging - and we - I saw a number of jurors taking notes, flipping through their pad of paper, writing down a lot of what was said, even though a lot of what she testified has nothing to do with the falsified documents in this case. And then, there was Trump reacting to that. He was nudging his attorney repeatedly, trying to get them to object. They did. And the judge agreed with a lot of those objections because they had to do with Stormy Daniels kind of going a little beyond the bounds of what the judge had said would be an acceptable testimony. And then, the cross-examination, Susan Necheles, came in there peppering her. So Daniels' demeanor changed. She was sitting with her arms crossed. She just was a lot more defensive in that mode. And we heard Stormy Daniels tell the story of how she met Donald Trump, how she ended up in his hotel room - suite, how she came out of the bathroom and saw him lying on the bed. So bringing the jury into the room in that detail and then also saying both when questioned by the prosecutors and the defense that she did want to make money from this, that's why she was telling her story and at least initially looking to sell her story. And then she said she wanted to get it done before the election because essentially she thought that's when she had the most leverage, that Donald Trump wasn't going to pay her after the election. I mean, Jeff Toobin and I were talking about this just a minute ago. Another key thing that happened today that is kind of lost in this is that the prosecution had showed a number of excerpts from Trump's books from 20 years ago. COOPER: This was before Stormy Daniels came out. SCANNELL: Before Stormy Daniels gets on the stand and they're reading excerpts that are going exactly at some of these issues in the case where Trump is saying, you have to challenge every invoice. I sign every one of my checks. And that is actually what this case is about. COOPER: Kaitlan, what stood out to you? KAITLAN COLLINS, CNN ANCHOR: I mean, I think the one word that everyone who was in the room can agree is it was incredibly intense. I mean, regardless of - if you're the defense or the prosecution, just the feeling in that room, it was like - the book excerpts were interesting and they are probably really relevant to this case, but everyone knew that Stormy Daniels was coming because it was one of the first things that the prosecution and the defense addressed with the judge when they got in the room today, which are the parameters of what she could testify. I mean, even before the cross-examination started, it was so intense in that room, listening to her answer those questions, watching Trump's reaction as he was paying more close attention than he ever has with really anything before. [20:05:00] At one point, grimacing. He had this scowl on his face as she was telling certain stories about what he said when she asked about his wife, Melania. The only time Melania Trump was brought up today. COOPER: This is when she said she was in the hotel suite. This is before they had sex. COLLINS: And she looked at the picture and she said, you have a beautiful wife. And he told her not to worry because they didn't sleep in the same room anymore. That was what she testified. But she also testified about a moment where in that same night in 2006 in Lake Tahoe, where she said - she was kind of tired of him talking about himself at dinner, that he kept interrupting her and he was showing her a magazine that had him on the cover of it. And she said that the only thing she was interested in was swatting him with it and he kind of like dared her to do it. And she actually did it, she said, and kind of acted it out in court. At that moment, we saw Trump mouthed a word. You couldn't exactly tell what it was. But when now when you look at the transcript, there was a really tense moment right after that when they took a break. And now when you look at the transcript, the judge asked the two sides to approach the bench. And he said to Trump's team, I understand your client is upset at this point, but he is cursing audibly and he is shaking his head visually and that's contentious. It has potential to intimidate the witness and the jury can see that. And Blanche said he would talk to him. And the judge said, "I'm speaking to you here at the bench because I don't want to embarrass him." Blanche said he would talk to him. And the judge said, "You need to speak to him. I won't tolerate that. One time I noticed when Ms. Daniels was testifying about rolling up the magazine, and presumably smacking your client, and after that point he shook his head and looked down. And later, I think he was looking at you, Mr. Blanche, when we were talking about The Apprentice, and at that point he again uttered a vulgarity and looked at you. Please talk to him at the break." Jury is not in the room. Witness isn't in the room, but the judge is saying you need to control your client while she's telling these very salacious details. COOPER: And Jeff, you recently interviewed Stormy Daniels. Were you surprised at the level of detail she went into? JEFFREY TOOBIN, CNN CHIEF LEGAL ANALYST: Yes. I have a PhD in Stormy Daniels studies. The - I was not surprised that she answered the questions, but I was surprised that the prosecution asked them. I didn't think that was necessary. And I think there is some chance that some of what she said might generate a little sympathy for Trump, because for all today was fascinating and I'm sure everybody's fascinated, as was I. Most of it is just not relevant to the case. I mean, this is a case about the money that was paid to her and it almost doesn't matter whether they actually had sex. The argument is that Trump was so worried about the report of the sex that the underlying truth of it doesn't really matter. I understand why the defense moved for a mistrial. I think the judge was right not to grant it. But I think some of this stuff was so explicit and so salacious that it was just unnecessary and I thought the prosecution could have told this story in a somewhat more truncated way. ABBY PHILLIP, CNN ANCHOR: I mean, this was always the risk with calling Stormy Daniels to the stand. I mean, she is a colorful person by her very nature, if you look at clips of her on late night and in other interview settings. And she really took that to another level on the witness stand. Every normal regular person witness is going to be a little tricky on the witness stand, it seems to me, but Stormy Daniels is on a whole other level. It was - I mean, maybe it's nothing ventured, nothing gained. I don't know if maybe there's some kind of Hail Mary at play here. But it seems like a huge risk to put someone on the stand who is not necessarily the most sympathetic witness. She has a very specific part of the story to tell. But she was asked to tell way more of it than I think even people who don't like Donald Trump would care to hear. And how that will play with the jury is anyone's guess. But it just - I'm with Jeffrey - it just seemed to me we learned way too much about the silk pajamas and whatnot of Donald Trump today. And none of that has to do with what he's ultimately charged with. TOOBIN: Now, just to add one point ... LAURA COATES, CNN ANCHOR: And yes, like, there's - well, there is a point, though, you have to be - it's a difficult needle to thread. You want to show credibility and a memory. You want to make sure that the audience, as in the jury, is aware that this person remembers specific details. They're not giving the broadest of strokes to ensure that they say with precision what happens. Now, of course, the risk of that is she has testified not in front of a court, but in other instances. So everything she's saying will be matched up against everything else she has said. But a jury wants to know that you remember this precisely. But the other fascinating thing is, of course, the star of this case is the least sexy thing of all. it's documents. There are 34 of them. Her place in this case, to me, was out of order. Not that she shouldn't have testified, she should have, but she should have come before the actual document witnesses came to testify. Because chronologically, what you want to build is a story. You want to talk about David Pecker and the catch and kills. Then you want to move into the idea of, well, here is Karen McDougal or Stormy Daniels on these issues and what actually happened that they're alleging. Then you bring in the Keith Davidson and talk about the NDAs that are happening. [20:10:02] Then you talk about, all right, now here is when it gets to the meat of the matter. Now, nobody asked my opinion. I would think they should have. But they didn't ask my opinion on how you actually do it. But the chronology is important here. And really I think it doesn't matter at all whether they believe that they actually had sex. What matters is that Donald Trump believed that she was going to go public with the allegation and that Michael Cohen believed so and that there was a structure surrounding her to ensure that they could stop that from happening. That's going to be the crux of the issue. Everything else certainly is colorful, but I don't really think the jury is that prudish. I mean, I think anyone clutching their pearls about porn, and Donald Trump and silk pajamas - these are adults and grownups who know that sex happens. And I think that having the conversation is not going to have them recoil as much as you think. COOPER: By the way, it wasn't so salacious. COATES: Right. COOPER: I mean, she said the missionary position ... COATES: Right. COOPER: ... and she said the word condom, so I mean, that was basically it. UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I know. But I do ... COOPER: I mean, yes, she painted a picture which maybe none of us want to know of, but ... ARTHUR AIDALA, NEW YORK CRIMINAL DEFENSE ATTORNEY: But there are much more - there's much more salacious testimony, of course. COOPER: Yes. I mean, Arthur, let me ask you ... AIDALA: Sure. COOPER: ... because during cross-examination, the defense asked Daniels about a story where she's - I mean, she signed a public statement saying she - that there was no sexual encounter with Donald Trump. She did this with - as part of this deal. She also talked to me about that. I asked her about it during the "60 MINUTES" interview. On the stand today, she testified she was motivated to sign the non- disclosure agreement by what she said was fear, not money. This is what she told me back in 2018. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) COOPER: I think some people watching this are going to doubt that you entered into this negotiation, because you fear for your safety. They're going to think that you saw an opportunity. STORMY DANIELS, FORMER PLAYBOY MODEL: I think the fact that I didn't even negotiate, I just quickly said, yes, to this very strict contract and what most people will agree with me, extremely low number, is all the proof I need. COOPER: You feel like if you had wanted to go public, you could have gotten paid a lot of money to go public in an interview? DANIELS: Without a doubt. I know for a fact. I believe without a shadow of a doubt. COOPER: So you signed and released a statement that said I'm not denying this affair because I was paid in hush money. I'm denying in because it never happened. That's a lie. DANIELS: Yes. COOPER: If it was untruthful, why did you sign it? DANIELS: Because they made it sound like I had no choice. COOPER: I mean, no one was putting a gun to your head ... DANIELS: Not physical violence, no. COOPER: You thought that there would be some sort of legal repercussion if you didn't sign it. DANIELS: Correct. As a matter of fact, the exact sentence used was they can make your life hell in many different ways. (END VIDEO CLIP) COOPER: So, I mean, consistent then and now, do you believe ultimately it comes down to who the jury believes? AIDALA: Well, if I am the defense attorney here, Susan Necheles, who's fantastic in the courtroom, in my opinion, you may be in this trial for real. Like, in other words, that's admissible. That statement is admissible. They have the ability to show that and show to the jury, okay, so when were you lying? Were you lying then or you're lying now? Look, I agree kind of with everyone has said here so far, they had to call her, even though the law is material witness. So if she didn't show up, she's not a material witness. The judge could not sign a warrant for her arrest. She does not give any evidence that the prosecutor has to prove beyond a reasonable doubt. She just gives a motive basically for Donald Trump to want to do this, but they don't have to prove motive, so they had to put her forward. What I was surprised about was as much as they must've prepared her, Anderson, they must've prepared her for hours, and hours, and hours is how everyone describes her as being a nervous wreck when she first took the stand, how playing with her hair and talking so fast and the judge slowing her down. I was surprised about that. I was surprised about the lack of objections from the defense. I was kind of shocked that they didn't ... COOPER: Well, it seems like president - former President Trump was also as well, because ... AIDALA: Yes, yes ... COOPER: ... and Kara was nudging (INAUDIBLE) ... AIDALA: ... yes, which is normal. And then when you talk about him being chastised by the judge, any defense attorney who represents someone of the caliber of President Trump, meaning someone who really is with it and knows what's going on has - I've had those moments where my client is cursing under his breath and the judge calls me. And Judge Merchan did what he's supposed to do. He's supposed to say, listen, I know your guy is frustrated. I know he wants to stand up and say liar. That's not true. That didn't happen. But he can't do it. If he wants to testify, later, but you got to get him under control and Judge Merchan did the right thing by basically reeling him in. COLLINS: But also on the other side of that, it wasn't just Trump who was being scolded. I mean, Stormy Daniels, in addition to being urged at least four times to slow down because the court reporters couldn't follow her. And even in the room, like you would hear her give an answer and you couldn't - it didn't always land when she was trying to kind of be funny. COOPER: Because she was talking too fast? COLLINS: Because she was talking so quickly. Like when she said that her response to having dinner with Trump was F off, it was kind of hard to hear her initially say the first part of that. [20:15:03] She kind of jumbled it. And then at two points after the judge spoke to the prosecution, he reminded Stormy Daniels to answer the question she was being asked because they would kind of ask these wide ranging open questions. And she would kind of meander and tell a story, but just kind of give the full picture instead of just answering exactly what happened. COATES: Look, I mean, I'm a very fast talker, as you guys know. I can't tell you how often in court I've had a court reporter say slow down to make sure because they're the ones trying to transcribe the actual intonations and sounds. It's not like a verbatim transcript, but there are oftentimes when sometimes your witness can be all the more sympathetic because they keep being interrupted and slow down and either all the more self-conscious. It can actually inert your benefit as a strategy in that because that person continuously is being told to stop and slow down. But remember also the judge, the judge criticized the defense and said, I was surprised you had not been objecting more. And he had unilaterally objected on their behalf because they need to preserve the record. If they don't object, they don't have a chance later on. And Necheles, I think at one point said, well, I thought because you hadn't been saying anything, this was okay. I mean, I don't know what kind of lawyering that is to suggest I was going to wait for the judge to object before I object. They got to be on their feet. And actually, I'm kind of surprised, gentlemen, that they did not have more speaking objections, at least to try to play to the jury like, objection, we're going to hear this testimony and get chastised ... AIDALA: Or irrelevant. COATES: ... just to have ... AIDALA: Relevance, Your Honor. Objection. Relevance, Your Honor. COATES: ... just to have a moment. AIDALA: Objection. Relevance, Your Honor. SCANNELL: Well, they had just had the conversation at the bench about the parameters of her testimony. COATES: Right. SCANNELL: And so what Susan Necheles said was, I thought you said this was okay. And then when I saw you object, I knew that this was grounds and I could object. So she - that's why she started objecting. COOPER: We're going to take a quick break. Coming up next, John Berman joins us. He's been going through the newly released, but still partial trial transcript for details from this very big day. Also, what courtroom artist Jane Rosenberg saw in court today as she was making the amazing sketches that you see here. We'll be right back. (COMMERCIAL BREAK) [20:20:56] COOPER: Well, there is a central irony of Stormy Daniels' testimony today, had the former president not denied their sexual encounter, much of her more revealing testimony, whether it was ill-considered by the prosecution or not, simply would not have been called for at all. Because much of what she testified to in court today, she already said when I spoke to her in 2018 for "60 MINUTES." (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) DANIELS: I excused myself, and I went to the restroom. I was in there for a little bit and came out, and he was sitting on the edge of the bed when I walked out, perched. COOPER: And when you saw that, what went through your mind? DANIELS: I realized exactly what I'd gotten myself into and I was like, "Ugh, here we go." And I just felt like maybe it was sort of - I had it coming for making a bad decision for going to someone's room alone. And I just heard the voice in head, "Well, you put yourself in a bad situation and bad things happen. So you deserve this." COOPER: And you had sex with him. DANIELS: Yes. COOPER: You were twenty seven. He was 60. Were you physically attracted to him? DANIELS: No. COOPER: Not at all. DANIELS: No. COOPER: Did you want to have sex with him? DANIELS: No, but I didn't. I didn't say no. I'm not a victim. I'm not ... COOPER: It was entirely consensual. DANIELS: Oh, yes. Yes. (END VIDEO CLIP) COOPER: Again, the former president denies this. And again, Stormy Daniels say - repeated much of it on the stand, sometimes in more vivid detail that the defense calls actually for a mistrial. CNN's John Berman has been looking through the day's partial trial transcript reported from court today. He joins us now. So what more did she say (INAUDIBLE) ... JOHN BERMAN, CNN ANCHOR: So one thing I want to note that's very important for the first time today, we do not yet have the full transcript of the testimony. Part of the reason might be because Stormy Daniels was speaking so quickly that it's taking them some time to process it because the court report simply have to catch up to everything that was said. So what I'm going to read to you now is what our reporters inside the room, their contemporaneous account of the moment where she discusses the alleged sexual encounter, Anderson, and it's very similar to what she told you. And the reason we're doing this, and I think Kaitlan can testify to this because she was in the room, is to give people a sense of just how uncomfortable it probably was. COOPER: She hasn't been sworn in (INAUDIBLE) ... BERMAN: Exactly, she can testify to it, not under oath. COLLINS: Yes, I'm not going under oath. COOPER: Okay. So Stormy Daniels says she walked out of the bathroom, as she told you, "I felt the blood leave my hands and my feet almost like if you stand up too fast. I thought, 'oh, my God, what did I misread to get here?' At first, I was just startled, like a jump scare. I wasn't expecting someone to be there, especially minus a lot of clothing, sitting on the bed in boxers and a T-shirt. The intention was pretty clear. Somebody stripped down to their underwear and is posing for you. He stood up between me and the door. Not in a threatening manner. He didn't come at me, he didn't rush at me. Nothing like that. Next thing I know, I was on the bed. I had my clothes and shoes off. I removed my bra. We were in the missionary position. I was staring up at the ceiling and I didn't know how I got there. I was trying to think about anything other than what was happening there." Again, that's our account from the reporters who were in the room. What we don't have and the first thing we're going to look at when we get the transcript, which could be in the next few minutes, is how many objections took place during that part there. How many times did the defense try to stop that account. COLLINS: There were a lot from just memory of being in there, especially at that part right there at the end where she was getting into the real details, because that's exactly what they had talked about with the judge beforehand. And the judge said, there's no need to get into that kind of detail. This isn't a sexual assault case. It isn't anything like that. And so they kind of had set that parameter and then she - it was Stormy Daniels, not really the prosecution leading her to that answer. She took it in that direction. And so they did object at that point. This is really where - I mean, to describe the atmosphere in the courtroom, it was like all the oxygen had been sucked out of it. Everyone was just sitting there. It was kind of similar to what you said last Friday, where when Hope Hicks was testifying, it was just all you could hear were the keyboard clicks as everyone was typing up this moment. Also, watching Trump with bated breath to kind of see how he was reacting, whether his team was going to object and really how the judge would respond. [20:25:04] I think the judge had - the last time I was in the court, I barely noticed the judge. The judge had a real presence today because he had such an involvement in what testimony was allowed and what should be said in the courtroom. TOOBIN: She has told this story many, many times, including in a book. I mean, she's - and what's striking to me is that it's very consistent time after time. AIDALA: Well, hold on. Hold on. Did you - I don't - I would think, Anderson Cooper is going to be a star in that courtroom. TOOBIN: Why? What was different (INAUDIBLE) ... AIDALA: Because she doesn't make it sound when she spoke to Anderson that the blood drained out of her, and she blacked out, and she didn't know what was going on. It was much more dramatic here. With Anderson, she was much more matter of fact. I came out. What did I get myself into. TOOBIN: Do you think that's sufficiently different to merit cross examination? AIDALA: It's - but there's going to be something in the book. There'll be at least five. Susan has all day tomorrow. Susan Necheles (INAUDIBLE) ... COOPER: Had she told - had she mentioned the blacked out thing before, Jeff? TOOBIN: I don't think - not that I'm aware of. But, I mean, that's just ... AIDALA: That's a big point. TOOBIN: ... that's not - it's not a big deal, I don't know. AIDALA: Yes, I think so. I think saying I almost blacked out, she didn't say it years ago when Anderson interviewed her, but now years later, she remembers, Oh, yes. And I almost blacked out. (CROSSTALK) AIDALA: And as ... COATES: The real issue for this - the real issue - I mean, I know there are some - the real issue for the defense is any intimation that this was non-consensual. That's why they would have been on their feet and should have been on their feet objecting because everything about this is probative versus prejudicial. They don't want to have prior bad acts even brought in if he were to take the stand, because you don't want the jury to be looking at things that are down the (INAUDIBLE) rabbit holes. AIDALA: They also going to make her to be a liar, the lawyer. COATES: Well, no, I ... AIDALA: They want to show her that she is a liar. COATES: I hear you on that, but their stronger argument, perhaps on appeal is going to be, excuse me, you're going to have somebody on a falsified documents case suggest that there is something that is non- consensual almost to the point where the person is not saying they have been assaulted. They are saying clearly they have not, but the insinuation is out there. They have said repeatedly, Todd Blanche was saying, you can't unring this bell. TOOBIN: Right. COATES: You can't unring this spell. How am I going to go in front of this jury and have them forget these moments. Whether it is a matter of the blacking out, I think she's using kind of colloquially in terms of, I was trying to focus on something else or it was the idea of something, far more nefarious. That intimation as a defense counsel is the last thing you want (INAUDIBLE) ... AIDALA: Right. They could use Anderson's tape. And so you told Anderson Cooper, it was absolutely consensual. There was no force. TOOBIN: She said it was consensual today. AIDALA: He didn't rush her, right. But they ... TOOBIN: Well, that's not inconsistent. AIDALA: Okay. COATES: Anderson, have you been subpoenaed for this trial, (INAUDIBLE) ... COOPER: (INAUDIBLE) ... AIDALA: No, but I'm sure they have that tape in their arsenal as well as the book, as well as all her other statements. PHILLIP: It seems like a huge rabbit hole to go down on. AIDALA: Yes, I agree. TOOBIN: I agree. AIDALA: I agree. PHILLIP: And that was my impression, just receiving this information from outside of the courtroom. I don't know what it was like for the jury, but it seemed like a big rabbit hole, especially coming off of a day when they were supposed to have been getting at the heart of what this case is really about. I'm with Laura. Like, I don't understand why Stormy Daniels came after the documents. I mean, maybe the idea was to kind of keep people interested in what was going on in the case, but the distraction factor here, I don't see how that helps the prosecution necessarily. When they need the jury to be focused on their ability to prove the elements on the case. COOPER: It also certainly overshadowed the earlier testimony in the morning, which was actually quite interesting from the ... COLLINS: I love these excerpts. COOPER: ... yes (INAUDIBLE) ... TOOBIN: That's a ... PHILLIP: Yes. TOOBIN: ... really good research, yes. COOPER: Were they really Trump - alleged words back to him, saying, yes, I dot every I, I know where every paperclip is. BERMAN: Breaking news, this just didn't, we just got the full transcript. COOPER: Okay. BERMAN: I can give you some of the objections here. We don't have the graphics to go with it, but this is the section I just read with the objections in. The question was, "Can you briefly describe where you had sex with him?" So there was a direct question. She says, "The next thing I know was on the bed, somehow on the opposite side of the bed from where we've been standing. I had my clothes and shoes off. I believe my bra, however, was still on. We were in the missionary position." Ms. Necheles: "Objection. Objection there." The judge says, "Sustained." Question: "Without describing the position. Do you remember how you got your clothes off?" Answer: "No." Question: "Is that a memory that has not come back to you?" This is from the defense, "Objection." The judge: "Sustained." Question from the prosecutor: "You don't, at this point, remember, is that correct?" Answer: "Correct." Question: "Did you end up having sex with him on the bed?" The answer: "Yes." And then they begin - he begins a question: "Do you know - do you have a recollection of feeling something unusual that you have a memory of?" "Objection." "Sustained." And the question is, "What, if anything, do you remember about - anything other than the fact you had sex on the bed?" That's what she says. She was staring at the ceiling, "I was trying to think about anything." Then there's another objection, sustained. I move to strike. The answer is stricken. TOOBIN: I think because Susan Necheles is a very good lawyer. I agree. AIDALA: Oh, go Susan, go. [20:30:02] TOOBIN: That she is going to spend more time, and she has already started spending more time on the issue of money than sex. On this idea that this was an extortion attempt, rather than an attempt to, you know, just -- however she described it. AIDALA: Kaitlan, isn't that she started? TOOBIN: And I think -- well, that's right, I mean, and she's -- and that I think is a much more profitable root for the defense then, you know, nitpicking about how she described the sex in a bunch of different ways. COLLINS: And they started that with Keith Davidson when he was testifying the attorney -- TOOBIN: Exactly. COLLINS: -- who brokered this agreement. They kind of were saying that he helps extort other celebrities. That's the allegation. He pushed back on that, obviously. And they brought that full circle with her today, basically trying to make that argument. It's very clear where they're going to go on Thursday. TOOBIN: And that's a much better argument than you didn't describe the sex the exact same way. AIDALA: No, listen, they're going to just try to make her a lawyer. COATES: Are you going to say that's a synonym for liar? What are you doing? AIDALA: Sorry. (CROSSTALK) COATES: What are you doing? AIDALA: (INAUDIBLE) a Freudian slip. COOPER: Let's take a break. John Berman, thank you. Coming up, we're going to switch gears briefly, focus on the former president's classified documents trial where a new order from Judge Aileen Cannon gave him a major win, and Judge Cannon's critics once again questioning her handling of this entire case. (COMMERCIAL BREAK) [20:35:21] COOPER: Shortly after today's testimony ended, there was a major legal decision in the former president's classified documents trial. Judge Aileen Cannon indefinitely postponed it. The trial was scheduled to start May 20th, and now it may not happen until after the election. Judge Cannon did it, she says, to resolve a series of pre-trial motions the defense has made, leaving the trial now without an actual trial date. Her order also includes a new hearing on what had been thought a long shot bid by the former president's defense. They want records from multiple agencies, as well as the White House, to argue that those agencies are part of a politically motivated prosecution. The special counsel's office has called the discovery request frivolous. Former Federal Judge Shira Scheindlin joins us now. What did you think of her ruling? SHIRA SCHEINDLIN, FORMER U.S. DISTRICT COURT JUDGE: I think she doesn't want to try this case, and I think she doesn't want to try this case before the election. That's a fact. She's got eight pending motions. Why doesn't she have four? Why hasn't she decided at least half of these motions? COOPER: She could have decided them by now. SCHEINDLIN: At least some of them. At least half of them. Maybe more. But she's slow walking the case, and it seems so apparent to me that she's doing that. Look, some of these motions are hard. What you do with classified documents and how you handle them, that's hard. Some are easy. They're trying to find out what the Justice Department is doing behind closed doors. Nobody's going to grant that. That's a silly motion. Saying that Jack Smith shouldn't be appointed, that's a silly motion. It's frivolous. So, some of these she could have disposed of and then she could say, I have four left and I can set a trial date for July. But as it turns out, I have eight pending motions. I can't possibly try this. Maybe July, maybe August, but we all know that means September and it's going to be too late if that -- COOPER: She says that there are, what she called, novel and difficult legal questions involved. I mean, are there? SCHEINDLIN: Well, giving her all the shadow of the doubt, certainly there's something novel about how you handle certain things about classified documents when you're a former president. Although I think it's pretty clear how you're supposed to handle them. But also Jack Smith is an unusual case because he's never been confirmed by Congress for any post. And all the other special counsels have. So there's a slight distinction there with respect to Jack Smith versus the others. But it's not such a hard motion anyway. It's different, but you distinguish it, you move on. So I don't find that any of them are that difficult. Are they novel? Yes. Novel does not necessarily equal difficult. COOPER: Jeff, it's certainly good for Trump. TOOBIN: Oh my God. I mean, and if you look at how she has done this case, the only question I have is whether this is incompetence or partisanship or both. Because, I mean, just for example, and the judge can perhaps -- I don't want to get too deep into the weeds here, but one of the motions she initiated was trying to settle the issue of jury instructions. This is something you do right before the trial begins. Why she was messing around with jury instructions when she has this long list of other motions to resolve just suggest to me she has no idea what she's doing, or she's just making stuff up to delay this case. SCHEINDLIN: Well, there's another theory. There's another theory. It could be rank insecurity. She's new on the bench. She has not tried a lot of high profile or difficult criminal cases. And maybe she just doesn't get it, what makes sense to do, of course, jury instructions should not be handled now. They should be handled before the trial starts. Everybody knows what they're going to be. COOPER: By the way, all three of those options are really awful. UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Yes. COOPER: Like -- if it's insecurity, if it's incompetence -- SCHEINDLIN: Right. COOPER: -- or, I mean, it's -- SCHEINDLIN: That's true. That's true. AIDALA: Judge Scheindlin, can I ask you a question? SCHEINDLIN: Sure. AIDALA: Because obviously I appear in your court. In a case of this magnitude, when you have someone with a lack of experience like this judge has, does she go to the lunchroom or whether it was a young male judge or young female judge and say, you know, can you -- you've been doing this for 25 years, can you give me some guidance? What do you think? What are your thoughts? SCHEINDLIN: You know, when someone's insecure, they're least likely to seek advice. I -- when I had been doing it for 20 years and I had a hard case, I would ask everybody. What do you think? How would you do it? I want the advice of my colleagues that I respect and that were senior or at my level. But when you're brand new, maybe you're too insecure to get the help you need. So I don't know the answer to that. AIDALA: How many clerks do you get? Like, you know, lawyers working for you, for the judge? SCHEINDLIN: I suspect she has three. You get two, but many judges give up a secretarial position or a clerk position to get three. So she probably has three. She has a lot of power to decide these motions. TOOBIN: And one weird thing about this case is that even though she's in the Southern District of Florida, which includes the Miami courtroom, which is enormous, a lot of judges, she's in Fort Pierce, essentially by herself, which I think contributes to the isolation and perhaps the insecurity. [20:40:00] And they just -- the absence of lunch partners to ask questions to, which is yet another reason why -- SCHEINDLIN: I mean, that's a good -- COOPER: (INAUDIBLE) places where you could actually, like, call somebody or -- SCHEINDLIN: I was just going to say -- COOPER: -- send a message -- SCHEINDLIN: I was going to say telephones are -- TOOBIN: What are you like, an inventor? SCHEINDLIN: No. Telephones are two centuries old. Zoom is one century old. So, yes, she could certainly make contact -- PHILLIP: Sorry, Anderson. COOPER: OK. PHILLIP: I mean, I just wonder about Jack Smith. There was a lot of discussion at the beginning of this. Jack Smith and his prosecutors, they checked off a box that made it a lot more likely that she would end up getting this case. They wanted to do this down in Florida. I don't want to put words in their mouth about why, but was that a miscalculation? At the end of the day, they end up with one of the most green judges out there trying one of the most difficult, you could argue, cases involving a former president. SCHEINDLIN: But it isn't a single judge district, right? There was still a chance but she -- TOOBIN: But very few. SCHEINDLIN: Very few but not a single judge district would -- which has been criticized certainly in the abortion case recently. COOPER: And Judge, just in terms of today's trial, you know, Judge Merchan was clearly bothered by the level of detail and where some of Stormy Daniels testimony went. I'm wondering if you were the judge in it, how would you have handled it? SCHEINDLIN: I think much the same way he did. Not only did he sustain objection after objection, he made objections. And when a judge does that, you know there's a real problem going on. The material that came in was not relevant to this criminal case at all. And I think it shows that she was trying to get Trump. I actually thought there was a motive there. She said she hates him. She said she'd like to see him in prison. I think she was purposely throwing out this stuff to make sure the jury -- jurors were prejudiced, particularly the women jurors, but probably half of the men too, were really put off. But they may have been put off with her because she was too obvious in her efforts to get at him. So -- COATES: Well, this judge -- oh, excuse me -- but this judge talked about, you know, the idea of the cure here is not the mistrial request. It would be cross examination. Did you buy that as a way to cure this? And could an instruction do anything to undermine if she, in fact, was trying to be that type of witness? SCHEINDLIN: So cross examination is tricky, and I'm sure Arthur could talk to that. You don't want to bring it up again. You don't want to reopen it and have her repeat it all. And that's a big risk. That if you ask about some of these things, she's going to go through it all over again. So that leaves us with a limiting instruction. And you can tell the jurors all you want. I don't want you to pay attention to this stuff that was not relevant at all to this case. And the jurors are going to go, uh-huh. Then they're going to go in the jury room and say, do you believe what happened in that room? She didn't even consent to this thing. They're going to do what they're going to do. Limiting instructions, I think, are the one instruction that's rarely really followed by the jury. COLLINS: Do you think that Trump's attorneys had a point about calling for a mistrial today? SCHEINDLIN: Well, it's not a baseless motion, but he's as anxious to grant a mistrial as he is to jail him for contempt. He doesn't want to do either, obviously. It's the worst outcome for the judge. And the standard is, can the defendant still get a fair trial? That's the New York standard for granting a mistrial. And he's convinced himself that with a limiting instruction and with admonishments, this will pass because people's memory is short. By the time you finish six weeks and by the time you sum up all the evidence, it might fade. So he really may believe that he can still get a fair trial. COOPER: Do you believe he can? TOOBIN: And the other point is both the prosecution and the defense ultimately are going to say, a lot of this is just irrelevant -- SCHEINDLIN: Well, it is. TOOBIN: -- to the trial. So to grant a mistrial over something that is fundamentally not relevant to the core issues in the case seems like a bad idea. SCHEINDLIN: No, but how about the word prejudicial though? It was quite prejudicial -- COOPER: Do you think there should -- SCHEINDLIN: -- for her to paint him that way. Pardon me? COOPER: Do you think there should be? SCHEINDLIN: Oh no. Granting a mistrial? COOPER: Yes. SCHEINDLIN: No, I'm not going that far. I'm saying there certainly, it was prejudicial. It was irrelevant, but prejudicial. It slammed him. It made him a creep. PHILLIP: Did they create appellate problems for this? SCHEINDLIN: Sorry? AIDALA: Yes. SCHEINDLIN: Yes. I do. AIDALA: Yes, yes, exactly. SCHEINDLIN: I think they're going to make a good record to preserve the issue. And they're going to raise it again at the end of the trial, and then they're going to raise it on appeal. AIDALA: And so when you say mistrial, that's for the record -- SCHEINDLIN: Absolutely. AIDALA: -- that it gives the -- it raises a red flag or a white flag to the appellate court saying, look, I thought this was so bad at trial, I asked for a mistrial. I tried it -- when I'm on trial, I try to get at least one mistrial a day. I'm serious, like find one avenue a day because most of the time we lose. So you're on appeal. I mean, not my law firm, not my law firm, but, you know, so you are always -- and the judge will tell you -- TOOBIN: Right (ph). AIDALA: -- you always -- yeah, exactly. You always guard that record as powerfully as you can, and the most powerful thing you can do is move for a mistrial. SCHEINDLIN: Yes, but it's one of the most illusory motions. It's almost never granted. AIDALA: Correct. SCHEINDLIN: No judge wants to start all over again, and certainly not in this case. COATES: At the end of the cation (ph) chief, though, they're going to call a motion to say to the judge, look, there's not even a need for this to go to the jury. There's not even a need for this defense to raise a case. Based on what you've seen so far in the presentation of evidence, would you even entertain that motion from the defense to suggest they have not even come close to meeting their burden? [20:45:07] SCHEINDLIN: No, I wouldn't -- I don't think I'd entertain the motion seriously, but we're talking a little too early. I want to hear the rest of this witness's testimony. I want to hear Michael Cohen. I want to hear the case before we make a decision. That's what judges do. COOPER: Judge Scheindlin, it's always great to have you. Thank you so much. We're going to be joined by a courtroom sketch artist, so renowned. She even got an acknowledgement from Trump today in court. (COMMERCIAL BREAK) COOPER: As Donald Trump walked into the courtroom this morning for the biggest day yet of his trial, he spotted our next guest, who's a fixture in that courthouse, and said hello to her. She's one of the brilliant sketch artists who's witnessed a lot in her decadeslong career. Jane Rosenberg is with us, along with our panel again. I'm so excited you're here. I sat behind you last week, and I was just stunned at your artistry and how you kind of bring these images to life. So quickly, I would turn away and two minutes later turn back and you've done an entire portrait of Donald Trump. [20:50:60] Just today, what stood out -- I mean, are you aware of the tension in the room or do you pay attention to the testimony that's being given? JANE ROSENBERG, COURTROOM SKETCH ARTIST: I pay attention. Do I recall every bit of it at the -- afterwards? No. I have -- you know, it's in me, but it's not like at the surface. I'm concentrating on drawing. That's my primary function. COOPER: Do you sense the sort of electricity in the room? ROSENBERG: Yes. COOPER: Do you hear the typing of the keyboards? ROSENBERG: Oh yes. Today was one of those days, like, same as Hope Hicks. Today -- COOPER: Right. It was that (INAUDIBLE). ROSENBERG: You were there -- COOPER: That was the day I was there and like, it was like cicadas invasion. ROSENBERG: It happened again today, as soon as a big witness. They had a good witness in the morning, but they didn't -- nobody cared, I guess. When Stormy Daniels came on and became that. So, yes. COOPER: And so you've seen Trump, obviously a lot. He -- what -- did he say hello today? ROSENBERG: He said hello today. He doesn't always, but he does know who I am. I -- he seen me in D.C., in Florida. I've been in every -- COOPER: You're drawing his picture and it's on television. Of course he knows who you are, right? ROSENBERG: He knows who I am. I guess it was on the cover of New Yorker magazine. He saw that. You know -- COOPER: Do you worry about how he thinks he's being portrayed? ROSENBERG: Not so much. His face, I do worry about because I've gotten some strange emails from people who don't like the way I portray him or family of his, whatever. COOPER: And it was fascinating because when I watched you last week, you drawn him and then just at the end, you took out like a very bright color and did like the bridge of his nose and also the hair. ROSENBERG: Yes, yes. COOPER: And it was fascinating because it sort of -- it brought the whole image to life. ROSENBERG: Yes, that's -- I work from the darks to pull out the lights in the end. That's how I work. My paper is kind of a darkish, a tan, a gold. COOPER: I look, you have an entire array of pastels around you, like you set up this -- which is incredible. ROSENBERG: It's the best part of my job. COOPER: But I was looking for like, what colors you use for Trump. And there wasn't like, I've -- I mean, I'm not saying there's any disrespect -- ROSENBERG: Thought it would be orange. COOPER: Yes, I thought there would be like an -- because you had like a black section, you had a, you know. ROSENBERG: No, I didn't. I had a little orange section, but he's not really fully orange. My paper's kind of orange. COOPER: Yes, your paper's dark. Yes, yes, yes. ROSENBERG: It's kind of like what his skin tone is. AIDALA: I'm curious, Jane, have you ever gotten, like, called to the carpet by a judge after a trial and been like, come on, Ms. Rosenberg, you could have done a better job on how you portray me? ROSENBERG: No. AIDALA: Have you ever gotten in trouble -- ROSENBERG: No. AIDALA: -- by a DA or, I mean, you always draw me as a big, fat, round -- ROSENBERG: Just you. AIDALA: Right. ROSENBERG: Just you AIDALA: Just me. I'm like -- I look like a bowling ball with eyes, Jane. ROSENBERG: That's it. COOPER: This is the real basis of the question by the way. COLLINS: Yes. COOPER: This is a roundabout way of saying. AIDALA: Oh, look at Kaitlan, she's objecting to leading questions -- COOPER: But you also have these glasses that are like special forces officers that you click down and -- ROSENBERG: Binoculars. COOPER: -- they're binoculars. ROSENBERG: They're binoculars but they have -- COOPER: Are they night vision as well, or just binoculars. ROSENBERG: No, they just -- COOPER: OK. ROSENBERG: There's a prescription lens on them. So I could -- I wear glasses so I could -- COOPER: And you use that -- are you looking at Trump's face directly or are you looking at his face in the monitor? ROSENBERG: If I could see him directly, I'm going to draw him directly. COOPER: But there's all those court officers in the way. ROSENBERG: If there's a court officer in the way, I have to check that monitor. Thank God for that. TOOBIN: Jane, what do you think about cameras in the courtroom? ROSENBERG: Come on, you can't ask me that. Bye-bye. AIDALA: Judge -- TOOBIN: That's what I thought, but I just wanted to check. COATES: How do you choose which emotion to capture? All the things to maybe -- you know, you got some commentary from the base, et cetera, how do you choose what emotion you're capturing in your drawing of, say, Trump, or even a witness? ROSENBERG: Whatever emotion they're exhibiting. Like, today during cross examination, Stormy was, like, really attitudinal. She was, like, turning away and looked very attitudinal, and that's what I have to capture. Whatever I'm seeing. Whatever they're doing. COOPER: But if you've started a sketch of her, say, the beginning of her testimony, and then all of a sudden it morphs into this attitude, what do you do? ROSENBERG: That's right. Thank goodness I had finished my last sketch and I was ready for this new one, because that happens a lot. Suddenly something changes and I have to -- COOPER: But I saw you -- ROSENBERG: -- pull out a new piece of paper until -- COOPER: I saw you last week, you had somebody in the background one minute, and then all of a sudden you just wipe them away. ROSENBERG: I do that. That happens. AIDALA: It's that easy. ROSENBERG: I don't like to have to do that. It's a decision. COOPER: Yes. ROSENBERG: It's a decision happening -- COATES: Was it him you raised on the bed in the bedroom? ROSENBERG: Of course it was you. AIDALA: For the record, there were many, at least four of Jane's artists in my -- between my house, my dad's house, and my office. She's brilliant. COOPER: Has there been a moment in a court, not this case, but just in general, at some point where it was so dramatic or so moving that you stop -- I mean, that it really got to you? ROSENBERG: Not in this case, but -- COOPER: Right. ROSENBERG: -- yes, I've cried. I can remember Susan Smith trial, was a woman who drowned her two children, little kids. I had a child the same age. I was traveling out of town in North or South Carolina away from my little kid and it was hard for me. [20:55:02] And I -- there, I heard the testimony of what some -- a child -- what happens to them when they drown and they were screaming, mommy, mommy, as she just let them strapped in their car seat in the back of a the car and rolled the car in the lake. COOPER: Yes. ROSENBERG: It was really heartbreaking for me. And there are other things I've seen -- I watched. I did George Floyd, had to watch him die over and over. These things are hard. A lot of murder trials are very upsetting. And I did an electrocution once. That was pretty bad. COOPER: Well, I really, just sitting behind you, I left really with a -- just in awe of the work you do. ROSENBERG: Thank you. COOPER: And I think it's so important, and I -- thank you so much for coming. ROSENBERG: Thank you. COOPER: Yes. Really lovely. ROSENBERG: Thank you. COOPER: Jane Rosenberg. Also, Laura Coates, thank you. We'll see you at 10:00 tonight, anchoring for the next two hours after that. The rest are back in the next hour with much more on this blockbuster day at the Trump trial. More insight in the testimony from Stormy Daniels next. (COMMERCIAL BREAK) The Source with Kaitlan Collins Aired May 07, 2024 - 21:00 ET THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED. [21:00:10] ANDERSON COOPER, CNN HOST: Just about 9 PM, here in New York, day 13 in the Trump hush money criminal trial, now history, including the former President today facing the woman he denies having an affair with, denies buying her silence, and denies cooking his company books to cover it up. Stormy Daniels, who testified in great detail today, so much so the defense moved for a mistrial, which the judge, though displeased by some of it, did not grant, meaning the defense got their first chance, to cross-examine her, this afternoon, managing their points to raise questions about her credibility, which in the end, will be up to the jury to decide. There's going to be more cross-examination on Thursday. At one point, Judge Merchan also ordered defense attorney, Todd Blanche, to speak to his client, Donald Trump, who he said was audibly cursing at points, during Stormy Daniels' testimony, behavior the judge called contemptuous. As for Daniels, she'll be back on the stand, when the trial resumes Thursday. Back with the panel, right now. Joining us CNN Legal Analyst, Elie Honig. And Norm Eisen, who served as Special Counsel to the House Democrats, during the first Trump impeachment, and is the Author of "Trying Trump: A Guide to His First Election Interference Criminal Trial." So, you've been writing courtroom diaries, Norm. What stood out to you today? What are the biggest takeaways from her testimony? NORMAN EISEN, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: Stormy Daniels is not a critical witness to the prosecution, unlike Michael Cohen, who's coming up. She's principally a corroboration witness, to provide additional evidence, because all of the witnesses we've seen have credibility issues. I thought she was actually more effective, on cross-examination, just watching the jury. Under the pressure of questioning from defense counsel, her toughness and steel came out. She pushed back on some of the aspersions that were cast upon her. And she did provide corroboration about the 2006 sexual encounter that kicked off this whole case, then the critical 2016 alleged campaign finance conspiracy, and then its cover-up. And you need that conspiracy, and the cover-up. She centered on the conspiracy. She brought us back, after a very dry documents day. COOPER: So, you're saying she was better on cross-examination, because she was more natural and sort of authentic, as opposed to her initial testimony, which was, I mean, it was certainly rushed from what we heard from outside the court. EISEN: I felt that she was not as effective. It's unusual. But sometimes, witnesses do perform better on cross. It was a challenge to her. And her genuine persona came out. If the -- she's a writer. She writes scripts. She's a performer. And I felt that the direct was a little bit too performative. She was more genuine, on the cross. COOPER: What do you -- what do you make of the defense calling for a mistrial? EISEN: Well, we -- Elie and I were chatting about this. There was no chance that they were going to get a mistrial. They wanted to make a point. The judge did agree with them that the testimony went too far. But -- and Donald Trump cannot have been too happy about this. The judge pointed out that the defense had failed to object at certain points that he had to, sua sponte on his own, object, at one point. It did go too far, Anderson. There were too many extraneous issues. A reporter asked me, did she talk too much? I said the problem wasn't talking. It was a failure to listen. She was not hearing the questions and responding to the questions. She was going over that script. But I do think, in the end of the day, just watching the jury, in the afternoon, the prosecution continued to advance its case. This today was more of three yards and a cloud of dust. And both sides got things that they wanted, from today's examination. COOPER: Elie. ELIE HONIG, CNN SENIOR LEGAL ANALYST: So, it's interesting because I was doing our live coverage, following along with our minute-by-minute updates from inside the courtroom. And I had the exact opposite impression. Now, you had the benefit of being in the courtroom. So, I will defer to that. But we do also have to be careful when we play sort of amateur psychologists to the jurors' movements, right? No, they were leaning forward. They were taking, I mean, taking notes. OK, they could be taking notes, because they think this is a great point. Or they could be taking notes because they think this makes no sense, and I don't believe it. So, let's just all be cautious in reading into the jurors' physicality. My impression was she was plausible on her explanation of what happened in that hotel room. It's hard for me to believe that a juror heard that and thought, this is entirely made up. There may well be some embellishments with Arthur -- Arthur, I think, pointed out effectively in the last hour. But I think it's quite clear they had sex in 2006 in that hotel room. But the cross-exam, boy, her responses were disastrous. I mean, do you hate Donald Trump? Yes, of course she does. That's a big deal. When the witness hates the person, whose liberty is at stake? That's a big damn deal. [21:05:00] And she's putting out tweets fantasizing about him being in jail? That really undermines the credibility. The fact that she owes him $500,000. She, by order of a court, owes Donald Trump a half million dollars, and said I will never pay him, I will defy a court order? The defense is going to say she's willing to defy a court order. Why -- she's not willing to respect an order of a judge, why is she going to respect this oath she took? So, I thought it went quite poorly on cross-exam. At the end of direct, I thought, OK, they got what they needed. But I think the cross is making real inroads. JEFFREY TOOBIN, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: Can I ask you both about part of the cross that has been a theme of the defense, which was this whole thing is just extortion. These are people, who had a way, of extracting money from Donald Trump. And that's what they did, with the threat of disclosing stuff he didn't want disclosed. How do you think that plays into this case? HONIG: You go first. You were there. EISEN: Look, I thought that the importance of starting with Pecker, who makes clear that there is an agreement. And he was very persuasive. And the rest of the case, including -- put the documents half of the case to the side, the cover-up to the side. Stormy didn't have anything to say about that. The rest of the case is all a follow-on to Pecker establishing the contours of this campaign finance, election interference, conspiracy. So if -- Jeff, if Donald Trump himself set up the arrangement that was later executed? That rebuts the extortion point. And Elie, to your point, it's not the note-taking that I found so telling on cross. It was that they didn't take notes. They paid attention. They listened. And she showed her steel. What are you supposed to do? She did do that tweet. She does hate Donald Trump. HONIG: Yes. EISEN: I think juries, if you're honest with them, that is the one thing they want. You can -- Arthur has made a very good living off of this principle. If you are honest with them? ARTHUR AIDALA, NEW YORK CRIMINAL DEFENSE ATTORNEY: Right. EISEN: They will trust you. KAITLAN COLLINS, CNN HOST: But can I say? EISEN: They will believe you. AIDALA: You can't lose cred-- COLLINS: On that point? AIDALA: You cannot lose credibility. COLLINS: On that point, there was one confusing line of questioning, where she didn't seem to have a solid timeline, on why she signed the agreement where she shifted from saying that it was not out of desire for money. It was out of fear that she signed this agreement. She said that she didn't want the story to get out. But then she said that she just wanted the story to get out. AIDALA: Right. COLLINS: And then she said she signed it because she figured it was just easier to do this, to stay quiet, to let them buy her silence. I thought that was a little bit confusing given that is actually what gets to the heart of this, which is the catch-and-kill aspect of this. And the fact that she couldn't get out there with her story, what they've been leading up to, with David Pecker, Karen McDougal, and now to Stormy Daniels. That was something that didn't get a lot of clarity in the courtroom today for the jurors. ABBY PHILLIP, CNN HOST: I don't -- I mean, the more I sort of marinate on this testimony, maybe the strategy is, in part, to show, frankly, with all due respect, how messy of a person Stormy Daniels is. And from Donald Trump's perspective, even his demeanor, in the courtroom today, the way that she really gets a rise out of him, it makes it very easy to explain, why he would think it is extremely important, to keep this woman's story from coming out, at the exact moment that she was threatening to tell the world. She would have been a character that would have absorbed all of the energy in the campaign, had she been out front in that particular moment. For whatever it's worth, the jury saw that today. And for all its good parts and its bad parts, Stormy Daniels is who she is. And she's not a clean witness, in the sense that she's not always telling a straight story. She's not always coming across as credible. Maybe she's acting sometimes. Maybe she's not. There was definitely something that happened. But the degree to, the nitty-gritty details, you're not really sure how much of it is true. And all of that is part of the package. And you can see why Donald Trump didn't want that to come out. COOPER: Kaitlan, the -- you know, you've talked to -- well, I mean, the former President has denied any kind of sexual liaison with Stormy Daniels. Do most Republican supporters and others believe him? COLLINS: It's hard after today, I think, especially. I think a lot of people said, well, she's coming forward, because he's running for president, and look at this. But there's all these instances of Donald Trump denying this. I mean, there are countless, from when he was in the White House, in briefing rooms. And there's one where even after he was confronted by a reporter, he denied it. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) REPORTER: Why did you change your story on Stormy Daniels? UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: On Stormy. DONALD TRUMP (R), FORMER U.S. PRESIDENT AND 2024 PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: We're not changing any stories. All I'm telling you is that this country is right now running so smooth. And to be bringing up that kind of crap and to be bringing up witch-hunts all the time? That's all you want to talk about. REPORTER: You did not-- TRUMP: You're going to see-- REPORTER: But you said on Air Force One-- TRUMP: Excuse me. Excuse me. REPORTER: --that you did not know anything-- TRUMP: No but you have to-- REPORTER: --about the payments. [21:10:00] TRUMP: Excuse me. You take a look at what I said. You go back and take a look. You'll see what I said. (END VIDEO CLIP) COLLINS: To Catherine Lucey's credit, she was the one who asked him the question on Air Force One, where he's in the hallway, and he denies. And no, you have to ask Michael Cohen about that. I don't know anything about that. Obviously, we later learned that was a lie. He did know about it. I think the one thing that we haven't talked about enough today is his level of anger inside that courtroom. I mean, I have been watching Trump as he was in there with Keith Davidson, the moments where he was closing his eyes, and not really paying attention, or trying to kind of pretend like the testimony wasn't happening. He made no illusions of not listening, today. He was glued to that screen. He had a scowl on his face the whole time. When he walked in and out of the room, he was downright angry. The only time he didn't seem really furious was as he was exiting the courtroom, at the end of the day, after Susan Necheles had delivered a pretty brutal beginning of that cross-examination. But Trump's anger in watching Stormy Daniels, and the two of them being in the room, for the first time in 17 years? They have not seen each other since 2007. It was palpable. Even from where I was in the very, very back corner of the room, you could see how angry he was, the longer her testimony went on. AIDALA: You can see how happy he was, as you just said, when he left the courtroom, because when he came outside, his statement today was you could see this case is falling apart. Because I forget I think what you-- TOOBIN: But he shows that every day. AIDALA: No, no, he doesn't, no. He says every day that I can't get a fair trial, the judge is, it's not fair. The jury is not fair. But today, because I think what Kaitlan just said, Susan Necheles came right out and said this wasn't about money? You said this wasn't about money? And of course, it's about money. And I think -- I think Abby said, we're going to focus, push it away from the sex and go about money, money, money. This was all about money for you. COOPER: Jeff, before Stormy Daniels testified. I don't want to suck all the air out of the room. But before she testified, the jury heard from this publishing executive and it was actually really interesting. The prosecutor had her read a number of passages, from two different books. One was how to be a billionaire. One of the quotes was, this is Donald Trump in this book, which was ghostwritten says, "As I said before, I always sign my checks so I know where my money's going. In the same spirit, I also always try to read my bills to make sure I'm not being over-charged." Another time in how to be a billionaire, he wrote, as I said before -- oh, that's the same thing. "As I said... I always sign my checks." TOOBIN: This is what the case is about. This is the charge in the case, which is that he made false business records. So, I thought that was extremely incriminating. Now, what I thought was sort of hilarious and fascinating, was his Charles Barkley defense. Now, you may not understand that reference, is that Charles Barkley, the basketball player and broadcaster, wrote an autobiography. COOPER: Even I know who Charles Barkley is. COLLINS: Like-- TOOBIN: I know. But, Anderson, I always want to be careful on the sports issues. And he claimed -- he wrote an autobiography, and he claimed he was misquoted in his own autobiography. The cross-examination was effectively that, is that well, Trump doesn't really write his own books. I think that's going to be a tough sell for the jury. And that, I mean, that's not going to seal the case. But that meticulous attention to his own bookkeeping, is something that is very important, in this case, goes right to the issues, and I think is going to be a big problem for him. HONIG: Let me -- let me give you an Amen to that. PHILLIP: And it corroborates the testimony from yesterday. HONIG: I thought Sally Franklin -- that's her name. Let's remember. Sally Franklin, to me, the legal nerd in me, she was the star of the day. PHILLIP: Yes. HONIG: I mean, that testimony about what Donald Trump himself wrote in his book is devastating. Remember, last night, when you were talking about, well, but does he know? Does he know about the accounting? Is he familiar with the invoices? She quoted him saying, you have to check out every invoice, you have to know every paperclip. To me, that was a much, certainly better witness for the prosecution, and ultimately, less dynamic, but more important. I know. It sounds ridiculous but. PHILLIP: Yes. But it doubles down on what-- HONIG: Yes. PHILLIP: --the jury heard yesterday, from another person, who knows Trump's practices very well, who said the same thing. HONIG: Yes. PHILLIP: That Trump would get invoices and be like, don't pay this, like go back and make it less. COLLINS: I hate to tell you all. But not one juror is going home, today-- PHILLIP: Yes. COLLINS: --thinking about what Sally Franklin testified-- PHILLIP: Well. HONIG: In closing. In closing. (CROSSTALK) COLLINS: --any of this. HONIG: That's going to be up on the board. TOOBIN: Yes. PHILLIP: They have. COLLINS: Maybe. TOOBIN: Yes. COLLINS: But I'm just saying right now-- HONIG: Yes. COLLINS: --like the jurors. (CROSSTALK) AIDALA: But Elie, Elie, the fact that-- PHILLIP: We don't think it's a mistake on the prosecutors. But to me-- TOOBIN: Thank you for the reality check. PHILLIP: --a huge distraction for the-- COLLINS: Thinking it's all better now. COOPER: I don't know. I mean, if I thought I'm thinking about it? COLLINS: Anderson's jumping about it. COOPER: If you're thinking about it? PHILLIP: Yes. COOPER: And somebody's -- I assume somebody on this jury. HONIG: Sally Franklin, remember that name. AIDALA: Right, but the fact Elie that just -- just it's Trump, like the quote from the book, right? HONIG: Yes. AIDALA: Make sure you're not getting over-charged, look at the bill, and make sure you sign and you're paying the right amount of money. As you know, Mr. Prosecutor, that's not enough to prove any element of this crime, correct? HONIG: Oh, it goes to a very important aspect of this. AIDALA: What's the aspect? HONIG: Which is he was aware of the whole check scheme, the reimbursement scheme to Michael Cohen. It's on point, today. AIDALA: OK. But it's not -- and it's not recorded anyway. It's got to still-- HONIG: It's recorded in his book. [21:15:00] AIDALA: It's -- no, he's not signing the book. He doesn't have the book. This is just him signing a check. It's got to go, where -- where is this book that it's being recorded in? He's -- Donald Trump signature's in the check, on the check. HONIG: Right. AIDALA: He does not know-- HONIG: OK. AIDALA: --that Allen Weisselberg put it down-- HONIG: They're the -- yes. AIDALA: --as a campaign expense or some other legal expense. COOPER: Well we don't know that, I mean. AIDALA: We don't know that. COOPER: Right. HONIG: But the book-- AIDALA: Sally doesn't prove that. COOPER: Right, yes. HONIG: --the book is saying Donald Trump saying, this is my practice. This is how I run my business. I check every invoice. It's not him saying, I checked the Michael Cohen invoices. That would be, you know. COOPER: There was also a quote in one of the books about Allen Weisselberg, and how he's been there by his side for 30 years. EISEN: Yes. COOPER: And how close they are. EISEN: And the book, another page of the book corroborated this story that we heard from Jeff McConney, you're fired, because he did not feel he was monitoring Trump's cash positions closely enough. For me, the most -- this is real legal nerdery. But the most fascinating part of the examination of the publisher was the redirect, because the prosecutors laid a trap. On cross-- COOPER: Yes, it's interesting. EISEN: --Blanche said well, wait a minute, there was a ghostwriter. There was a co-author. And then, the prosecutors came back with all of the personal details of the acknowledgement. COOPER: Right. And the co-writer was like this young-- EISEN: And Trump's mother who was quoted in there. COOPER: Yes. EISEN: And it just hammered. COOPER: But also, the co-writer wasn't like an established writer, who would have just invented all this stuff. It was somebody, who was like, part an assistant-- COLLINS: She works at Trump Org. COOPER: --who works at Trump's Organization, and sits outside his desk. COLLINS: Well. COOPER: So, the idea that she is making up all these quotes seems highly unlikely. COLLINS: Also fun fact she's-- EISEN: However, Kaitlan is totally right. Not a single juror remembers-- COLLINS: But can I just say one fun fact of this woman? EISEN: --what happened this morning, none. COLLINS: She works for the Trump Organization. She's a staffer there. I think she's like in her 70s now. She's the one who helped Melania Trump write her RNC speech in 2016 that plagiarized parts of Michelle Obama's speech. And she had to apologize. And she took the blame for that. COOPER: Yes. COLLINS: Just to bring this all full-circle-- HONIG: Nothing could be easy. COLLINS: --that we're still living in 2016-- EISEN: Yes. COLLINS: --at this moment, but. COOPER: Wow. So on -- so Thursday, Stormy Daniels is back. How long? I mean, if you are the defense attorney, where do you go? AIDALA: Oh, wow. What they've done before, OK? So this is how it works. Months ago, they take everything Stormy Daniels has said everywhere, and you put it -- I mean, I'm old school, so I just do it on paper. But they put it on Excel spreadsheets. And it's by topic. What did she say about how she met Trump? What did she say in the book? What did she say to Anderson Cooper? What did she say here? What did she say there? So, you have all those checklists, and all these different topics. And then, on this side, it's like, all these different interviews. And then look, you have to have it so memorized, so in your soul, when you're the lawyer, standing up there that you're reacting. You don't have time to say, all right, hold on Madam witness, let me look at this. You have to be like, oh, really? That's what you're saying today? Well, do you remember giving an interview to Anderson Cooper in 2018, when you said this? So which time were you lying? You're lying to these 12 jurors, or you're lying to Anderson Cooper? TOOBIN: But what -- but what is-- AIDALA: But you have to know it like that. TOOBIN: But what is the core lie that you want to establish? I mean, do you really want to establish that they didn't have sex? I mean, what -- what is-- AIDALA: Look? TOOBIN: What is? See, this is why I find her-- AIDALA: You just want to-- TOOBIN: --an entertaining witness. But I don't think she's all that important. AIDALA: I agree with you. TOOBIN: Yes. AIDALA: But you know -- you know who you're attacking without attacking them? The prosecutor. COOPER: But by the way? AIDALA: You can't trust them. This is the witness. This whole case is about Stormy Daniels. If Stormy Daniels never met Donald Trump, none of us would be here. And they're the ones, who put this whole case. We're only here because of this woman. And you can't believe her, because she told this lie, that lie, this lie, this lie, that lie. And if you can't believe any of those lies, then you're going to walk him right out of this courtroom. COOPER: Elie, I mean, there's no question, after Stormy Daniels testimony today, there's no way Donald Trump is testifying. HONIG: Oh, my gosh, no. COOPER: I mean, there wasn't before but-- HONIG: Probably it went from 0.0 to 0.0. COOPER: Yes. HONIG: Yes, I mean, there is just no reason for him to testify, strategically. I don't think you will find a rational defense lawyer, or prosecutor, on the planet, who would say he should testify. He doesn't need to. This is a reasonable doubt defense. Arthur just articulated it quite well, and quite passionately. I can't wait by the way to see Michael -- well, you on Michael Cohen night. Let me put that to side. PHILLIP: Yes. HONIG: But I mean, basically the pitch is they haven't proven their case. And they're basing this on the word of two people, Michael Cohen and Stormy Daniels, who you cannot believe beyond a reasonable doubt. To take the stand would just be absolutely self-destructive. COOPER: We got to take a quick break, next. Now, we've gotten the full trial transcript. John Berman's back with more of the standout moments from today. And later, Clarissa Ward, from Jerusalem, on Israel's move to take over the Rafah border crossing into Gaza, and where this leaves ceasefire negotiations for both sides. (COMMERCIAL BREAK) [21:23:35] COOPER: Before the break, Arthur mentioned the degree to which the defense is focusing on the consistency of Stormy Daniels' statements over time. Today, at least her accounts of her conversations with the former President about his daughter, Ivanka, and possible opportunities beyond "The Apprentice" do square substantially with the ones she gave me in 2018. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) STORMY DANIELS, PORNOGRAPHIC FILM ACTRESS AND DIRECTOR: He's like, wow, you -- you are special. You remind me of my daughter. You know -- he's like, you're smart and beautiful, and a woman to be reckoned with, and I like you. I like you. COOPER: At this point, was he doing The Apprentice? DANIELS: Yes. And he goes, got an idea, honeybunch. Would you ever consider going on and -- and being a contestant? And I laughed and -- and said, NBC's never going to let, you know, an adult film star be on. It's, you know, he goes, no, no, he goes, that's why I want you. You're going to shock a lot of people, you're smart and they won't know what to expect. COOPER: Did you think he was serious? Or did you think he was kind of dangling that to get you to want to be involved him? DANIELS: Both. (END VIDEO CLIP) COOPER: Back with the panel. And John Berman, who's got more from the trial transcript. What stands out? JOHN BERMAN, CNN ANCHOR: So, we've had a chance, now that we have the full transcript, to go over the cross, and put a little meat on the bones of what you've all been talking about here, on how the defense really went after Stormy Daniels, right out of the gate. On page three of the cross-examination, this is when Susan Necheles, the defense attorney, says to Stormy Daniels, am I correct that you hate President Trump? Daniels: Yes. Necheles: And you want him to go to jail, right? Daniels: I want him to be held accountable. Necheles: You want him to go to jail; am I correct? [21:25:00] Daniels: If he's found guilty, absolutely. Necheles: And you tweeted in the past that quote, "I won't walk, I'll dance down the street when he selected to go to jail;" correct? Daniels: Can you show me that's exactly what I said? That's not-- Necheles then says, can we please pull up J-2, exhibit J-2, only for the witness and the parties, please. The exhibit's shown. She looks at it. She goes, uh-huh, and Daniels laughs. Susan Necheles says, did you just laugh? Daniels says, selected is in quotes because I'm quoting something that someone else said. Because I knew you don't get selected to go to jail. Necheles says, you just laughed about that; right? Objection, from the prosecution. Daniels says it's a typo. The judge says overruled. Stormy Daniels says that's why it's funny. You don't get selected to go to jail. Daniels says it's not because you think -- this is a typo. It's not because you think it's funny at all, Susan Necheles asks. And then Stormy Daniels says no. Absolutely not. So that you get a sense of how tense it was. Obviously, you get the part about Stormy Daniels hating her. But you also get the defense leaning in to the idea that Stormy Daniels was laughing on the stand. HONIG: You know how rare it is, to ask a witness on cross-examination, you hate the defendant? And the witnesses say yes, I do. I mean, it's better that she's honest about her bias. But this is overwhelming, what lawyers call bias. She hates him. And again, if I'm the prosecutor, I'd rather have her just come out and admit what's obvious. But that's a big deal. The jury is allowed to take that into account. And that is very stark testimony. I think it will stick in their heads. COOPER: Do you think the defense will ask Michael Cohen, do you hate Donald Trump? HONIG: Oh my goodness. Hate is not the right word. I mean, it's his entire livelihood, it's entire -- AIDALA: Yes. It's how he makes-- HONIG: --his entire persona. AIDALA: It's how he makes a living-- COOPER: Yes. AIDALA: --Your Honor. HONIG: There is a some poor intern on the defense, he would see-- COOPER: Do you think he'll answer-- (CROSSTALK) COOPER: Do you think he'll answer yes? Or do you think he'll try to-- HONIG: He's going to-- COOPER: --give a nuanced answer? HONIG: Oh, Michael Cohen embraced -- yes, right. He's going to embrace this. I mean, some poor intern, on the defense team, is probably listening to every podcast this guy's ever done, every TikTok he's ever done. It is over the top. I've never seen anything like the level of personal hatred and bias that Michael Cohen will have. TOOBIN: And Michael Cohen wrote an entire book called "Revenge." COOPER: Yes. Yes. TOOBIN: So, you don't really have to look that hard-- COOPER: Right. TOOBIN: --to find his motivation. COOPER: I'm just wondering if he would cop to it so freely or you know? TOOBIN: We'll see. But I-- AIDALA: He's going to have no choice. And he's-- TOOBIN: Yes, yes, I don't. AIDALA: And don't forget. He's getting prepped and prepped and prepped. But Anderson, can we just touch about how sick it is that Stormy Daniels said that here's Donald Trump hitting on her, wants to have sex with her, and he's like, you remind me of my daughter? That's weird stuff, man. That is-- COLLINS: Well she was saying it was because she's smart that-- PHILLIP: Pretty-- (CROSSTALK) COLLINS: When she said she was-- AIDALA: OK. When you hit on a girl-- COLLINS: Now, can I say? AIDALA: --you don't say you remind me my daughter. COLLINS: But -- but to-- AIDALA: That's nuts. COLLINS: To that point-- AIDALA: It's disgusting. COLLINS: --one thing that stood out to me, as someone who's covered Trump since even before he was in the White House, watching him sitting there, and having to listen to the way she talked about him? It wasn't just what she said and the salacious point. She was so derisive. She was mocking him, basically, at several points. She was saying, he was old enough to be my dad. He was older than my father. She was 27. He was 60. She was saying she didn't enjoy it. She didn't want to be there. She's had all these points, where then in the cross-examination, she was like, yes, I do hate him, and I do want to see him held accountable. And she was not shying away from her past statements about him. Trump never has to sit there, and listen to someone talk about him like that, or talk to him like that, and describe him as arrogant and pompous. And today, he, I mean, he had no choice. He was just sitting there. Speaking of what this trial has done to him, regardless of the outcome, seeing him sit there at that table, and just have to kind of take it, is remarkable. COOPER: Yes. PHILLIP: And this is one of the things that he has always been the most sensitive about, this Stormy Daniels allegation in particular. Kaitlan knows this actually really well, because asking him about this, at the White House would be like World War II for the White House staff. They absolutely hated this line of questioning. And it really gets to -- it reminds me of how he responded to the Access Hollywood tape. That's definitely him, right, on the audio tape? But he still likes to deny it. And so when he's confronted with the sort of worst parts of himself, he really reacts very strongly, and very negatively. And that's what this whole case is about. However, I do think Stormy Daniels, the way that she conveyed that. Trump is going to make the argument. And I don't know what his lawyers are going to do. But he's already been making the case. This is a concocted case, to dirty him up, before the election, to make him seem bad, in front of the American public, even though there's no like legally -- illegal thing that happened here. That's his argument. I don't know that Stormy Daniels helped the prosecutors, in batting that down, because she seemed to have a personal vendetta against him. It may be justified. But that's what it seemed like, based on the facts. COOPER: Well the defense, when they cross-examined her, I mean, they attacked her motivations about talking about these. BERMAN: They tried, many ways. One, there was the hate issue, also the financial motivation, and they lean into that. [21:30:00] On the one hand, you all mentioned before. Stormy Daniels had said that she refuse to pay Trump, the money that she owes him in the lawsuits. This is where Susan Necheles, the defense attorney picks up. Now, while you've been refusing to pay President Trump the money that you owe him, you've also been making money by claiming you had sex with President Trump; right? Daniels says, are you talking about the book? Yes. Necheles: And, you've been making money by claiming you had sex with Donald Trump for more than a decade; right? Daniels: I have not been paid for interviews in the United States if that's what you mean. Necheles: Well, that was not my question. My question was, you've been making money by claiming to have had sex with President Trump for more than a decade; right? Daniels: I've been making money by telling my story about what happened to me. Necheles: And that story, in essence, is that you say you had sex with President Trump; right? Daniels: Yes. And that story has made you a lot of money; right? Then Daniels says, it has also cost me a lot of money. TOOBIN: And that's -- that point about costing her a lot of money. And this is the thing I spent a lot of time talking to Stormy about, which is, because Michael Avenatti filed this libel lawsuit against Trump that the judge in California said was frivolous. He awarded attorney's fees to Trump, which is assessed against the client, not the lawyer. The amount he now -- she now owes him with interest and penalties is $670,000. She owes Donald Trump $670,000. You can see why that makes someone really angry. And there does seem to be a measure of injustice, because her lawyer, who is now in prison, for other reasons, is responsible for her being in this gigantic debt, which is much more than the money she made out of this whole thing. AIDALA: But there are other reasons that he's in jail, Avenatti. But they're very similar that right? He's in jail for extortion. The defense's theory here is somehow is going to be have to do with extortion. But getting his-- TOOBIN: Well he's also in jail for stealing from Stormy. AIDALA: Yes, that's true. TOOBIN: I mean, so. AIDALA: But to Kaitlan's point about, Trump having to sit there? He did -- he didn't explode. But he reacted in a way today that caused the judge to tell his lawyers, you've got to rein this guy in. Because the judge does have the power. I mean, there's the Confrontation Clause, which is tantamount in a trial. So, the way the judge can put him in jail, the judge also can throw him out of the courtroom. It's very hard, if a witness is testifying. Unless he just acts so disruptively, then they could put him in another room, with a videotape, because he's forfeited his right to be there. COOPER: Do you think -- did the defense mention the amount of money that she owes him to, already? COLLINS: Yes, they asked her. They-- TOOBIN: Oh, yes. Yes. COLLINS: That was actually right when it began that she was going. COOPER: Yes. COLLINS: I mean, John has the transcript. But Susan Necheles was going line by line of what she owes Donald Trump-- COOPER: Yes. COLLINS: --and what she says that she's not paying him. AIDALA: Does she owe him money for violating the non-disclosure agreement? HONIG: No. TOOBIN: No, it's for this-- PHILLIP: Yes. TOOBIN: It's for filing the frivolous lawsuit. AIDALA: No but there's no -- usually a non-disclosure agreement-- HONIG: You want to sue. COLLINS: Trump didn't even sign it though, remember? TOOBIN: Yes. COLLINS: There was no lawsuit. But also Trump's-- TOOBIN: They never did. COLLINS: --whole argument was void-- PHILLIP: And-- COLLINS: --because he never even signed it. PHILLIP: She talks at length about why she won't pay it back. And there was an implication that she could, but she won't, because she thinks it's unfair. So, they talked at length about that. BERMAN: This is a -- and isn't it true that you're hoping that if Donald Trump is convicted, you'll never have to pay him the more than half a million dollars you owe him? It's out there. It was in this trial. HONIG: And even beyond that, both Stormy Daniels and Michael Cohen, even putting aside this judgment against Stormy Daniels, they do have direct financial interest here. If Donald Trump is convicted, they're going to both sell more books, get more views, get more downloads, be on TV more. If he's not convicted? What if this jury? I don't think it's at all likely they come back not guilty. Might hang. But if they come back not guilty? The bottom falls out on the Michael Cohen and Stormy Daniels market. So, in addition to over-admitted personal hatred, they have a financial motive as well. AIDALA: And that will be drilled, drilled, drilled to her and to him and to the jury at the end. They have millions of reasons to lie to you, ladies and gentlemen of the jury. COOPER: John Berman, thanks very much. Appreciate it. Obviously, the jury heard a lot from Stormy Daniels today, as well as anger from the judge, about some of that testimony. Coming up, we'll talk to a jury consultant about it all. (COMMERCIAL BREAK) [21:38:40] COOPER: Want to discuss more about what the jury saw today, especially from Judge Juan Merchan. Juries often take cues from judges. And today, this jury saw a judge, particularly in the early session, visibly frustrated with prosecutors, and the witness, Stormy Daniels. Her early testimony included details about sexual positions, and whether the former President used a condom, and he didn't. This judge later said there were some things, quote, "Better left unsaid." However, those details and other denials or things that Daniels talked about may boost the credibility of her claim of having sex with the former President. It's a claim he's consistently denied, and lies at the heart of the charges against him. Joining us is jury consultant, Alan Tuerkheimer. How do you think the jury responded to Stormy Daniels' testimony? ALAN TUERKHEIMER, JURY CONSULTANT: Jurors sacrifice a lot. They give up their time, their families, their jobs. And it's difficult. They have to hear the information in a case. They don't get to sit around and talk to people about it. It's stressful. And when I talk to them, after verdicts, the number one thing they usually tell me that irks them about the process is that time was wasted or when something was inefficient. COOPER: Yes. TUERKHEIMER: That really bothers them. And I think they're looking at the testimony today. I think there was some extraneous testimony that she went into, some of the details that you just highlighted, maybe a few jokes, which I don't think should ever be made in court. And so, I think that bothered the jurors. Now, they would tend to give her a free pass, unlike somebody like Michael Cohen, who would do the same. But I do think it bothered them. [21:40:00] And if you think about it, the prosecution, in its opening statement, had some pretty stark language. They've talked about a conspiracy, cover-up, scheming, that kind of thing. And so, they really want to elevate, and have jurors think that this is serious stuff. So anytime there's a moment of frivolity in the courtroom, or if that goes on for a while, I think that hurts the prosecution and helps the defense. COOPER: There was reporting that Stormy Daniels was addressing the jury, and made sort of jokes, and they didn't seem to respond. And people in the courtroom said, and Kaitlan, you can talk about this, that it didn't seem to land well with the jurors, right? COLLINS: Because it was such a tense environment, and such a serious subject that she was talking about. TUERKHEIMER: Yes, I just -- I don't think there's really any circumstance. I know you mentioned earlier, if something-- HONIG: Yes. TUERKHEIMER: --isn't planned, and there's little humor? Yes, it's a good time to release. Jurors can laugh at that. But any kind of planned humor, it's just the courtroom is not the place for that. And I think they probably picked up on that. And if they maybe smiled or looked at each other, whatever happened, I don't think that they appreciated that. COOPER: When in cross-examination, when she was asked if she hated Donald Trump, and she said, yes? Did jurors appreciate that honesty, you think? Or how -- I mean, or do they suddenly now question her motives? TUERKHEIMER: I think some of them -- I think a little bit of both. I think they probably appreciated it, but also thought, well, what is her reason for testifying? What is she here for? And I know there was the discussion earlier about cross and direct. Maybe she was more credible? I mean, Norman, and you were talking about this. I think, to me, the big thing is that if your demeanor changes from direct to cross, the jury is not going to think that you're that credible. They're going to question how truthful you are, how believable you are, and how likable you are. So, whether or not whatever she said, during the -- during the cross that maybe she didn't touch on during the direct, if the demeanor changes, and it's a different person? That's going to hurt her credibility. TOOBIN: Apparently she was at times talking directly to the jury. Do you have a view? Some witnesses, in answering questions, answer to the jury, and others answer to the lawyer. Do you think one of those is the correct approach? TUERKHEIMER: I think being natural is the best. So, I like it when a client, if somebody says, could you explain to the jury? Then, you look at the jury. I think it's unnatural, and jurors get a little weirded-out by it if the lawyer and the witness are talking, and then, every time there's an answer, they pivot and look at the jury. I don't think that's natural. I think it's good to try to at least elicit and prompt them to look at the jury, so that the jury feels like-- AIDALA: Can I-- TUERKHEIMER: --we're having a conversation. AIDALA: Can I ask your opinion about having two lawyers on the jury? TUERKHEIMER: Yes. So, it was not inadvertent, certainly. And it's very interesting. This is a white collar type of logical, accomplished jury. There are sales-- AIDALA: Yes, oh yes. TUERKHEIMER: --sales people, business people. AIDALA: It's not a Bronx jury. That I can tell you. TUERKHEIMER: Yes, it's yes, so maybe not that atypical for a New York County. But yes, the other lawyers are going to have probably undue influence. It's interesting that there're two. Now, I don't know -- they didn't run out of strikes, because they were chosen in the first seven. So maybe one side thought the other would burn a strike on a lawyer and then -- or the other. Either way, though, I think maybe the thinking is these lawyers are going to strictly adhere to the law-- AIDALA: What would you counsel-- TUERKHEIMER: --not going to get-- AIDALA: --the Trump attorneys, regarding the lawyers? Would you have told them to strike them? Or would you say I think, in this case, it's OK to keep them on? TUERKHEIMER: I think it's -- I think it's OK. I think that a lot of times lawyers, they've been -- they've seen situations, where ethics maybe were questioned, and maybe some shady thing's going on. And they can distinguish that between illegality. And maybe that's the hope. They're not going to get bamboozled by some of the salacious details of what's going on in this case. So, it's always risky. And it's interesting that there's not only one but two lawyers on this jury, for sure. COLLINS: Susan Necheles, the Trump attorney, at one point, during her cross-examination, said to Stormy Daniels, you aggressively rehearsed for this, with the prosecution, didn't you? And Stormy Daniels pushed back on the characterization. She said she did go over her testimony with them. I wonder though, how the jury hears that, people who may not know what did -- how prosecutors do work with the witnesses, that they call, of what they're going to say. TUERKHEIMER: I think most jurors know that witnesses do prepare. And in a way, it shows that they're taking it seriously. Now, I know they didn't get into that. So, I don't think that was too much of a surprise. But most jurors do make that inference that if you're going to get up and testify case like this, you're certainly going to prepare for it. And rehearse is a word maybe she wanted to use. That wouldn't be the word that Stormy Daniels would use, but. COLLINS: I think that's a Susan Necheles tactic. TUERKHEIMER: Yes. AIDALA: Yes. Yes. TOOBIN: So, I've heard judges say when that line of cross-examination comes up, judges just interject. There's nothing improper about-- AIDALA: Objection, Your Honor. Objection. I didn't ask -- and nobody asked you to say that judge. TOOBIN: What? AIDALA: No one -- no one asked -- no one asked you to interfere, Your Honor. PHILLIP: You'd object to the judge? AIDALA: There's no question. HONIG: You can't object to the judge. AIDALA: Judge, what are you doing? PHILLIP: I'm not a lawyer here. That's not-- AIDALA: Judge, what are you doing, judge? Nobody asked you-- HONIG: So, speaking of -- speaking of judges, I think it's accurate-- TOOBIN: I have no idea what he's talking about. Did you answer my question? TUERKHEIMER: I'm not sure. Well I think the one thing -- this was your question. But the one thing I think in terms of that that's related to that, I think when Hope Hicks said that she was nervous? That's something that I think is, and you've heard that, I'm sure, where that's something the jury can relate to. So when that's elicited, the jurors can appreciate that. That brings them down to earth a little bit. And it's true that someone like her, she's not used to testifying. But there's a -- there's a fine line between that, and saying, now you rehearsed for this, and you're -- basically the implication is, your attorneys either told you what to say, or you know what to say, and they told you how to say it. [21:45:00] AIDALA: Well, often the first thing I say, if it's not my witness, and if it's cross-examination, I'll say Miss -- Miss Daniels, really, this is the first time you and I've ever spoken, correct? Correct. That's not true with the prosecutor, correct? Correct. Could you tell me approximately how many times have you met with them? And on what dates? And what was the first time you met with them? What was the second time? And the best part is if they're like, well, I don't know. So, you met with them so many times that you don't even remember how many times? COLLINS: But you as defense have a right to meet with them, and to talk to them about their testimony, which the Trump team hasn't done with all of the witnesses here. AIDALA: Yes, but they usually, Kaitlan. TOOBIN: Usually but -- yes. AIDALA: They usually say-- TOOBIN: They say no. AIDALA: --no. TOOBIN: They usually say no. PHILLIP: They'd like to ask-- AIDALA: They say, no, thank you. COLLINS: But why would a defense -- why would the defense counsel not want to meet with-- AIDALA: Oh, you would. COLLINS: --some of the other witnesses? AIDALA: You would definitely want to. But usually, they say no. COLLINS: So, why didn't they? AIDALA: They say no, I'm not going to meet with you. I'm not going to talk to you. The lawyer doesn't reach out himself. The lawyers-- COLLINS: But what if there's no outreach? AIDALA: The lawyers -- that there's no way for that to really get -- I mean, I've never -- I don't recall a prosecutor saying, well, did Mr. Aidala ever try to talk to you? That's-- COLLINS: No. No. I'm asking, if Todd Blanche and Trump's other attorneys have the right to reach out to some of these witnesses that we've seen, to talk to them about what they're going to say on the stand, and they didn't do that? Why would they not have done that? AIDALA: Well, I don't -- I don't -- can't answer that question. But usually, I would ask my investigator, hey, pick up the phone and see if Stormy Daniels will talk to us. One out of a 100 times, a witness says yes. COLLINS: But do you think it's a good idea, is what I'm saying? AIDALA: Oh, absolutely. If you can, if they're willing to talk to you. But they usually don't. But about the nervous thing. When I put a witness on the stand? I would say, are you nervous, right now? They'll say, yes. I say, you know what? So am I a little bit. But we'll get through this together. HONIG: It's humanizing. PHILLIP: So, Alan, I keep coming back to what you were saying about the jury, and all the angst that went into constituting this jury, in the first place. They understand the stakes of this case. And I think a lot of them probably understand how their lives are probably going to change after all of this. When Stormy Daniels inserts this implication that there is -- there are vendettas at play here, hers, maybe Michael Cohen's later? How does the jury react to that when they know that there is -- maybe they're not following the news, but the President of the United States, the guy who used to be president, is sitting right there? They know that there's a political implication. TUERKHEIMER: Right. I think because of who these jurors are, and they've lived here for -- they've known Trump for 40 years. And so, I don't think that they are shocked by that. The conscience of the jury is not shocked, when they hear that information. It's something that if they hear once or twice, they might think, oh, wow, that's interesting. And they want to know how it relates to the case. But to that, I just don't think it's that big of a powerful point that they're trying to make. I do think the jurors are wondering how everything's going to connect to the verdict questions that they're supposed to answer. And that'll be really interesting. COOPER: Yes. TUERKHEIMER: I haven't seen those actual questions. I want to know what they are. Because you might have a jury that is prone to convict, or they think maybe the -- they side with the prosecution. They read the law verdict form, and they don't want to -- or the other way around, they side with the defense, and they read the questions, and think well, maybe this means that we should convict. So, that'll be really interesting too. COOPER: Alan Tuerkheimer, thank you so much, really good to have you. And everybody in the panel, thank you. Appreciate it. TUERKHEIMER: Thank you. COOPER: Ahead, how President Biden today condemned a surge of anti- Semitism in the U.S., since the October 7th Hamas attack. That and a report from Israel and the state of the war and ceasefire talks, next. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) JOE BIDEN, PRESIDENT, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: So heinous, so horrific, so grievous. (END VIDEO CLIP) (COMMERCIAL BREAK) [21:52:23] COOPER: At a Holocaust remembrance ceremony, today, President Biden said we (ph) will not forget what happened in Israel on October 7th. He also reiterated his quote, "Ironclad" commitment to Israel's right to exist. Meantime, the IDF today seized the Palestinian side of the Rafah border crossing, a vital entry point for aid into Gaza. That as uncertainty remains over a ceasefire proposal that Hamas claims to have accepted. CNN's Clarissa Ward is in Jerusalem, with the latest. Clarissa, what gaps remain between what Hamas agreed to yesterday, or say they agreed to yesterday, and what Israel is willing to accept? CLARISSA WARD, CNN CHIEF INTERNATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: So Anderson, there seem to be two key areas of disagreement here. The primary one relates to the 33 hostages, who would be released, as a part of this deal. That was supposed to include women, female soldiers, the elderly and the sick. But Hamas are saying that in the agreement that they signed on to, essentially, that some of those 33 could be dead bodies, if they're not able to locate those hostages alive. And the Israelis have said that that is completely impossible for them. So that's the key area. Then another issue is this issue of whether Israeli forces would pull out of the Gaza Strip entirely. Hamas has said again, in the proposed agreement that they signed on to, that it would entail Israel completely pulling out its forces. Israel has said there is no possibility of that happening. Now, while it sounds like there's a lot of daylight between the two sides, U.S. officials have said, and we heard from White House spokesperson, John Kirby, today that he believes the gaps can be closed. We know there has been a flurry of diplomatic activity talks, ongoing in Cairo, today. CIA Director, Bill Burns, who was in Cairo, will be flying to Israel tomorrow, to meet with his counterpart, David Barnea, at Mossad, also to meet with the Israeli Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu. So, even though there is still some real distance on these core issues, there is a huge amount of diplomatic pressure, and efforts going on, to try to get the two sides, to come together in a lasting deal, Anderson. COOPER: I mean, what's the latest about what's happening in Rafah? WARD: Well, there have been airstrikes, today. We know, according to health officials on the ground, that at least 27 people were killed, including six women and nine children. The IDF also reporting nearly 20 rockets were fired from that Rafah area. The Israelis are now in full control of that Rafah -- Rafah border crossing area, which means that that border crossing is closed. Kerem Shalom is also closed. [21:55:00] And so, you're hearing a lot of concern from aid organizations, who say that unless that aid is able to get in, unless those trucks with fuel, with food, with medicine, are able to get in, that you're going to be looking at a dramatically worse humanitarian situation. There has been a huge flight of people, some 100,000, who are already on the move, according to the head of UNRWA, some 200 people moving every single hour. Hospitals in the eastern part of Gaza, some of them been forced to close, among them, Abu Youssef Al-Najjar Hospital. That is a hospital that treats people with dialysis, who have kidney issues. So again, very real fears that what Israel is describing, as a sort of surgical precision anti-terror offensive, could turn into something broader, and that this will have a devastating impact, on the already dire humanitarian situation in Gaza, Anderson. COOPER: Clarissa Ward, thanks so much. The news continues, including CNN's special primetime coverage of the Trump hush money trial, right after a short break. (COMMERCIAL BREAK) CNN Newsnight with Abby Phillip Aired May 07, 2024 - 22:00 ET THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED. (COMMERCIAL BREAK) [22:00:29] ABBY PHILLIP, CNN HOST: Welcome to a special edition of NewsNight. I'm Abby Phillip alongside Laura Coates. And tonight, two Trump legal strategies and the evidence that one is working and the other might be working against the former president of the United States. The first, deny, deny, deny. In minutes, the eight- year history of the many, many times that Trump has repeated his denials about Stormy Daniels and insisted a picture is all there is to the story. LAURA COATES, CNN HOST: Now, the adult film star, as you can imagine, telling a very different version of events the jury under oath today inside 100 Center Street. Now, Daniels left out, by the way, the most salacious details, but not much else. She chronicled how that night in Lake Tahoe in 2006 escalated from chatter to a dinner invitations at his hotel suite, to silk pajamas, to posing in his boxers on the bed, to sex. Trump listened, a scowl etched across his face for much of the nearly five hours that she spent on that witness stand. Trump nudged, and I say nudged lightly, nudged his lawyers as repeatedly to object as prosecutors prompted Daniels to explain how Cohen, allegedly in Trump's direction, engineered the deal to keep her quiet. Now, the defense, they got their bite at the apple as well and landed some notable dents in her story, suggesting that she was an opportunist who's been making money for years off of whispers of this tryst who's inventing this story from thin air. At one point, Trump attorney Susan Necheles elicited this answer question. Am I correct that you hate President Trump? Daniels, yes. PHILLIP: but the other legal strategy that is paying dividends for Donald Trump, delay, delay, delay. The classified documents trial in Florida is postponed until TBD, a date that is not known and may likely be after the November election. That's according to a new order from the U. S. district judge, Aileen Cannon. Judge Cannon argues that there are too many rules and too many deadlines that she has to wade through before thinking about a firm start for Jack Smith's case. Here to tick through all of the important testimony from quite a day in court today, Deanna Paul, Olivia Nuzzi, Joey Jackson, Mercedes Colwin and Donte Mills. Joey, let's get right to it, the salacious details. Give it to us. What happened in the court today? JOEY JACKSON, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: The devil is in the details, and do I have details. So, let's start with the transcript, all right. So now, prosecutor, can you briefly describe where you had sex with him? Daniels, Stormy Daniels that is, the next thing I know, I was on the bed, somehow on the opposite side of the bed from where we had been standing. I had my clothes and shoes off. I believe my bra, however, was still on. We were in the missionary position. Objection, says defense counsel. The judge sustained. Prosecutor, without describing the position, do you remember how your clothes got off? Answer by Stormy Daniels, no. Prosecutor, is that a memory that has not come back to you? Objection again, defense counsel. The judge sustained. Prosecutor, you don't at this point remember, is that correct? Stormy Daniels, correct. Prosecutor, and did you end up having sex with him on the bed? Stormy Daniels, yes. Prosecutor, and did you know, withdrawn, do you have a recollection of feeling something unusual that you have a memory of? Objection, the judge again, sustained. Prosecutor, what if anything, do you remember anything other than the fact that you had sex with him on the bed. Stormy Daniels, I was staring at the ceiling. I didn't know how I got there. I made note like I was trying to think about anything other than what was happening there. Objection, again, the judge sustained. Defense counsel, I move to strike. The judge, the answer is stricken. Boom, a lot of stuff going on in that courtroom regarding pretty salacious. PHILLIP: I think the question is, what does that have to do with anything? JACKSON: That's a very good answer, but I think the -- a question. But here's the issue. The issue is, is that this is the elephant in the room. The elephant in the room, of course, is the actual affair. And when I say the devil is in the details, I think if you're going to be descriptive with respect to having an affair, Trump has denied the affair repeatedly, this sort of gives a sense that it actually took place. Now, I've read some things. I didn't read other things. I didn't get into the satin pajamas. [22:05:00] I didn't get into the boxers. I didn't get into the other -- the nature of, you know, the hotel being three times the size of her home. And so I think those color commentary gives a sense of the fact that it happened, number one, and gives a sense of urgency of why you wouldn't want the voters to know anything about that. It might affect election prospects. COATES: And also, I mean, focus as well, guys, thinking about the objections. Why were these defense counsel so quick to get on their feet and say objection about this, right? There was the intimation that was another big elephant in the room to suggest that somehow this was not consensual. Now, she has denied that it was not consensual. She said that it was consensual repeatedly. But the defense counsel did not want even the slightest innuendo that she was suggesting by looking up into the ceiling and wanting to be anywhere but there, that it would give additional fodder for that very point. That's important for this defense to make sure it's not prejudicial on that moment. DONTE MILLS, CRIMINAL DEFENSE ATTORNEY: You definitely want to rule out, A, the jury having any idea that this was not consensual because it will impact how they look at Donald Trump as a person. That's why you want to rule that out. But I want to clarify this and say this. We had this idea that a prosecution puts together their case and everybody is on board with their plan, everybody is on board with everything they're doing. That's not how it works. Sometimes you have a witness that has their own motive. And clearly, she went in there and wanted to make it clear that this actually happened. This, for better or for worse, is now the most important moment in her life, her affair with Donald Trump, and he's denying it. You can tell she went in there wanting to prove to everybody that she knew would be listening that this affair happened. And that's why she interjected with those details to make it clear. PHILLIP: Olivia, you've spent some time with her. You've talked to her about this exact moment. How does it stack up to the version that she's told you? And what did you make of how she came across on the stand today? OLIVIA NUZZI, WASHINGTON CORRESPONDENT, NEW YORK MAGAZINE: It's interesting. Her, the facts have stayed the same over these years. I first met her in 2018, not that long after the Wall Street Journal report about this first came out. And I've subsequently interviewed her and stayed in touch with her. The facts have stayed the same, but her own interpretation of the dynamic between the two of them, between herself and Donald Trump, has evolved over time. I mean, not dissimilar to say how Monica Lewinsky's opinion of what happened between her and Bill Clinton evolved from when, you know, the immediate aftermath until more recently. COATES: But Monica talked about that she could not have given consent because of the power dynamic. That was her evolution of thought. NUZZI: So, initially, Stormy was very much talking about how she definitely had agency. She was not a victim. We saw in her Anderson Cooper interview, for instance, back in 2018, I believe it was, talking about I am not a victim. When I last spoke to her about this on the record in 2023, she began to feel not just about this situation and not saying that the sex itself was not consensual, but that, in general, she felt victimized by the entire thing. She felt victimized by the way that Donald Trump's supporters had gone after her, had threatened her. She felt victimized by the way that her family had been affected by all of this, how her life was being defined, as you said, by this. And she began to feel like, you know, she was no longer just tough as nails and sort of gritting her way through it, and it really has taken a toll on her. But when it comes to the sex itself and whether or not it was consensual, she's never claimed that it was outright rape, but she is operating now in this sort of nuanced place where she's saying that there is a sort of gray area where their power dynamic was made things sort of unclear. It's difficult, I think, when you talk about that in an interview for a magazine, or if you talk about it on your podcast. It's very different than talking about it in a courtroom. COATES: And that's why the defense counsel was on their feet, right? Deanna, to think to themselves, hold on, I mean, you talk about what's up with anything. They want this to be about the sexiest thing in this courtroom, the documents, 34 counts of falsified records. We know it's subjectively sexy, but that's what this case is actually coming down to. But the idea that she is talking about how she might feel afterwards or the victimization by others or the threat by somebody in a parking lot, I think it was in Las Vegas, the prosecution has to focus her on a very narrow window, right, just what happened to secure the NDA. That's the point in time they have to keep her confined to. DEANNA PAUL, TRIAL LAWYER: You're absolutely right and that's why defense before she took the stand raised all of this. They raised the objection. They said, Judge, we want to make sure that this testimony is limited, that she stays within the guidelines that you've set up. We don't think it's relevant how she felt at the time. We don't think it's relevant how she felt after. And then you see -- I mean, she starts testifying, she's going way out of the guidelines that were set up. She's talking about or implying that it, to an extent wasn't consensual. She's talking about this imbalance of power and she's talking about things that just aren't relevant to this trial. PHILLIP: But prosecutors kind of poked the bear. Why would they do that on that particular issue? I'm reading this and they're kind of digging, oh, is that a memory that has not come back to you? They're asking right -- they're probing into this abyss. Why? PAUL: So, it's something that Susan Hoffinger during the arguments before Stormy Daniels took the stand, she said -- she made that argument then that it's really important that the jury know context and how she felt in that moment. [22:10:10] And I think Susan was trying to take it as far as she possibly could, but that's also why the defense started -- they objected consistently every time they thought something got a little bit past the line, which is also why I was surprised that Judge Merchan didn't kind of punted it back to the defense being, like you should have objected more. COATES: Well, they should have objected more. The idea of like if you have the judge saying, like I'm objecting for you -- and I wasn't there. I'm putting the Laura Coates tone. How I envisioned it was, objection, right it to them. MERCEDES COLWIN, CRIMINAL DEFENSE ATTORNEY: Judge Coates, you're absolutely right. I should've stood up on my feet and objected. But here's the issue, and we're trial lawyers here, you have to be so careful. Because if you object, object, object, the jury is going to be like, what are you afraid of? Why are you so afraid that this witness is going to say something that's going to be damaging to you? So it has to be very, very strategic. But that testimony that came in and the fact that the prosecutor is pushing those edges so much farther and then the allegation that it may not have been consensual, that's super problematic for the prosecutor. And it's not going to result in a mistrial. It's already been ruled upon it's not. But it may be an appealable issue, we'll have to see. That's really significant. NUZZI: Laura, I just want to say something. You know, there's some speculation about what her motive may have been in talking this way today. And she was asked if she hated him. She said yes. My read of it, knowing her a bit, it's pure Stormy Daniels. She's a really colorful character. She speaks in a colorful way. She's a writer. She wrote a book. She started writing it long before the Donald Trump thing happened. It's a really funny book of essays where this is just one episode. She's very colorful. She's a great storyteller. It was actually a kind of measured day for her, I think, rhetorically. She gets into way more details. PHILLIP: (INAUDIBLE) book in a way in her testimony. NUZZI: Right, she's a storyteller. The idea that this is just -- this was a performance and this was some sort of, I don't know, aberrant behavior from her. MILLS: But you also have to believe that the prosecution told her, here's our, our parameters, right? We're allowed to talk about this, we're not allowed to talk about that. She had to know that and be told that. And, seemingly, she went far beyond that. NUZZI: It's a nerve-wracking experience, though. COLWIN: Donald Trump saying, you're a liar, you're a liar, you're a liar, exactly to your point, Donte. Finally, I'm under oath. I'm going to say my story, and no one can stop me. And that's where she ended up jumping into it. JACKSON: Two things that are very important. Number one, we prep witnesses. Whether you're the defense or the prosecution, you prep them, and it's not that it's a script, but it's pretty specific questions, and you're eliciting pretty specific testimony. That's number one. Number two, if your witness is going left, you pull them to the center, your witness goes right, you pull them back. And so the issue here is whether or not, and why not, to your point, Abby, why didn't they pull them back? Why did they allow prosecutors, that is, the testimony to go off the rails in that way? PHILLIP: Yes. I mean, can we just call it what it is? I mean, prosecutors had a tricky witness, and they kind of let her loose. MILLS: But why would -- listen, I teach, I'm a professor of law, and I teach my students, you put your case in. It's up to the attorney on the other side to guard against that. If you believe you have a reasonable basis to ask a question, you ask the question. And if there's an objection and the judge says, sustain, then you can move on. PHILLIP: Not if asking the question hurts your case, not the defense's. COLWIN: At the end of the day, the prosecutor is going to say, was it worth it? Was that testimony worth it to begin? The answer is, for us out here, probably yes, because you have to say, this obviously puts everything into context. It was such an extreme issue that happened with Stormy Daniels that had to be out there. The elephant had to be called out into the room. So, this was in context. COATES: I was a sex prosecutor. I know my daddy is watching this. But all she really said was missionary sex and a condom wasn't used. I mean, we've all heard far more salacious details. PHILLIP: It wasn't the sex. It wasn't all of the sex. It wasn't all the sex. There were some other things, but Joey will get to us -- COATES: Yes, sorry. PHILLIP: -- get us there a little bit later. Everyone stick around. Trump's attorneys are pushing for a mistrial after parts of Stormy Daniels testimony today, as we've been discussing. But Judge Merchan was not pleased with the testimony, though he did not necessarily buy what the defense was saying. We'll tell you what happened after that. COATES: Plus, breaking today, Trump's federal classified documents case is getting now an indefinite delay, potentially until, surprise, surprise, after the election. You're watching NewsNight's special coverage of the hush money trial of Donald J. Trump. (COMMERCIAL BREAK) [22:18:57] COATES: You're watching our special live coverage of the hush money trial of Donald Trump. Trump's attorney putting forward a motion for a mistrial based on today's testimony, which the judge, Judge Merchan, denied. Our panel is back with us. Joey, I want to get to some more of your dramatic reading, because I'm so fascinated by it, this time about Melania, because she was mentioned. She's not been in the courtroom, has not been anywhere near this courthouse at all. That may or may not be a good thing for the defense to raise later to say that it's shielding her, but tell me what happened, why she came up? JACKSON: More salaciousness. Okay, here we go. All right, that's what I'm here for, right? So, the prosecutor asked the following question. Let me ask you, at some point, was there a very brief discussion about his wife, Melania? Answer by Stormy Daniels, yes, very brief. Prosecutor, did this occur in the context of you viewing a picture that included his wife? Stormy, yes, he showed me a few pictures of things and I said, oh, what about your wife? Prosecutor, what did he say? Stormy Daniels, I actually said, she is very beautiful. [22:20:00] What about your wife? He said, oh, don't worry about that. We are -- actually, we don't even sleep in the same room. Boom. Listen, I think it provides more context. Remember Trump has always denied that there was ever an affair, right, never happened, didn't exist, nothing to see here, and so this is more specifics. Devil always in the details, it didn't happen. Yes, it did. And here's how it went down. And so I think that sort of adds to the credibility of what she's trying to say, which is that they were together. COLWIN: And if they have an open marriage, doesn't it sound like that's what Stormy Daniels said, my wife is not going to care, we don't even sleep together? So, at the end of the day, he's saying, I had to hide this money. I had to pay -- I had to hide -- make sure that this money was paid to Stormy Daniels. JACKSON: Election. COLWIN: Right. JACKSON: Not family. COLWIN: Exactly. But he's going to say it's family. But if he doesn't have a relationship, doesn't have a sexual relationship with his wife, then why would he care? So, that really swipes at defense. PHILLIP: I buy that argument that there was actually some substance to this anecdote about Melania. But on the defense basically said, halfway through this, they were like, mistrial, judge, mistrial, obviously denied, but that's basically setting a predicate for appeals down the road, maybe not because of this anecdote, but there was a lot that was said. Stormy Daniels was like gossiping with her best friends on the witness stand and they're going to take every single one of those things and say, what does this have to do with the charges at hand? MILLS: Absolutely. And I think when you look at it, the prosecutor, their job is going to be when those appeals come up And that's why they move for a mistrial here. I don't think they thought they would get one, but, procedurally, you have to. You have to move for a mistrial because that preserves your rights onn appeal. That's why they did that here. But when it comes up on appeal, the prosecution is going to have to point specifically for each fact, how it's important to this case. And just like you said, it's perfect. That makes sense because if he's saying, I'm doing all this to protect my wife. But you don't even care about your wife in the moment, you guys aren't sleeping in the same bedroom, it kind of makes that idea farfetched and makes it more likely he cares about the campaign as opposed to protecting his wife, who he really doesn't have a strong relationship with anyway. COATES: But there are two different moments in time to think about, right? There's the 2006. The word affair maybe should not be used in this context, right? They're saying this was a transactional occurrence that Daniel is saying happened, Trump is saying did not happen, but that it took place in 2006. The falsified business records, as alleged, takes place after the inauguration of Donald Trump into the White House, talking about a very big period of time. So, even him saying this, that, you know, my wife and I are in separate rooms, which I think at the time she just had a newborn, that was Barron, right? That's part of what's going on here as well, allegedly. But at that time, the motivation that would develop to falsify business records is actually more than a decade later, right? PAUL: Yes, absolutely. I don't know. Like you were just saying, I mean, it's, you have this idea that you have to preserve the record on appeal. They had to make the mistrial motion, but at the same time, I think it was way more than that. I mean, it was the least surprising thing in this entire trial, I think, that they made this motion. And I said, they were talking about lack of consent. They were talking about imbalance of power. There were a lot of things, particularly in light of the Weinstein reversal a week ago, of course, they were going to make this motion, and I do think there are ripe grounds for appeal. I don't know that they'll win, but it's definitely something that's a valid argument. PHILLIP: Olivia -- yes, go ahead. JACKSON: But -- sorry. But, Laura, to your point about the timeline, right, just hear me, if you're just talking about it, and it's a very valid point, because we're talking about an affair that's years later. COATES: Affair. JACKSON: Sorry, whatever it is, right? Galleons get together, interaction, whatever it is, silk satin pajamas, whatever. But in the event that he doesn't care then, did the relationship solidify such that he would care ten years later? If they had an open marriage at that point, right, is the issue, and his wife was not a big deal, she became a big deal ten years later. In other words, the relevance of this discussion is that, what was your motivation, sir? Was it about hiding it from your wife, who sleeps in separate beds and you really -- you know, she's not going to mind that we get together, or is it about you being elevated to the presidency, because if this is outed to voters, that becomes problematic? So, that, I think, is a relevant point. NUZZI: I do want to say, I mean, Melania Trump is a Catholic woman from Slovenia. Our modern usage of the phrase open marriage probably does not apply to their relationship, if they had some sort of understanding. If she definitely knew who she married and was okay with that, that's one thing. But I think the idea of it being an open marriage in the sort of way that we use that term now is probably not quite right. And my understanding of Melania Trump has always been, in covering her as the First Lady, has been that what she was concerned about was being humiliated publicly. And so all of these things can be true at once. He could have been trying to shield her and trying to shield himself from scrutiny from the electorate. [22:25:03] If you have an angry wife who does not want to participate in your election, that's an optics issue and a political issue, just as it's an issue in your marriage. PHILLIP: And she would push back publicly in moments like this when this stuff came up. I want to just touch on another big thing that happened today, which is that, in Florida, the classified documents case, Judge Aileen Cannon says she doesn't think this case is going to happen anytime soon. She's got too many issues on her plate. She's got eight motions that she has yet to rule on. We had a judge on earlier today who brought up the elephant in the room for her, which is that this is an extremely inexperienced judge who has basically left on her plate all of these issues. And now this case might not be heard until maybe after the election. COLWIN: I mean, which is amazing, though, if you think about it. So, Abby, most of my practice is federal. These federal judges have a lot of clerks that can help her with these motions. One of those motions is actually jury instructions. Well, as a federal practitioner, all of us who practice in the courtroom, those jury instructions don't become ripe until the trial begins. And then you start to negotiate what those trial instructions are going to be. But to have -- so, basically, you have seven substantive motions, and she has the ability to have her clerks at least help her with some of them, it seems pretty implausible. And, of course, I mean, I hate to criticize a judge, especially one that I might appear before in that district, but there has to be -- there's some questions that need to be answered. MILLS: Everybody all day, and I've been listening, have been talking about how this judge should be moving this along. Could it be that this judge understands if she takes that case to trial, look what Trump does it did the Judge Merchan. Maybe she doesn't want to do that. Maybe she wants to delay this and not be in the spotlight because she knows her life is going to be looked at like a (INAUDIBLE). It's not a reason. I'm thinking of why she's doing this, because, clearly, she is. She's delaying it but why. I have a simple to why, because I think the judge clearly has a bias for Trump. He appointed that particular judge. And it seems that since the outset, she's been going -- bending over backwards to assist and help him. That's my plain and simple answer. COATES: Things that make you go, hmm. I just say so. I don't know. Everyone, thank you so much. Stick around. Stormy Daniels', we'll call it, vivid testimony at the heart of the hush money trial will continue on Thursday. Next on NewsNight, we'll talk with the friend that she called that night in Lake Tahoe. I remember that testimony. Stay with us. (COMMERCIAL BREAK) [22:31:58] PHILLIP: Today, Stormy Daniels spent quite a lot of hours recounting, with a lot of detail, how she wound up in a hotel room with the former president of the United States. That encounter is at the very heart of the Donald Trump hush money cover-up trial. But Trump, plausibly or not, has always denied that this affair ever even happened, starting back in 2016, just weeks before rumors swirled about the adult film actress shopping her story. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) DONALD TRUMP, FORMER U.S. PRESIDENT: The stories are total fiction. There are 100 percent made-up, they never happened, they never what happened. All 100 percent totally and completely fabricated. Never met this person, these people, I don't know who they are. (END VIDEO CLIP) COATES: Well that was just the beginning. Denial number two, four days before the election, Hope Hicks told the "Wall Street Journal" the affair was, quote, "absolutely, unequivocally, untrue". And just as news of the $130,000 payment at the core of this trial became public, Trump's then-lawyer and now potential witness, Michael Cohen, told the "Wall Street Journal" in January of 2018, quote, "President Trump once again vehemently denies any such occurrence, as has Ms. Daniels". PHILLIP: Two months after that, Daniels told her story to CNN's Anderson Cooper on "60 Minutes". (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) STORMY DANIELS, PORNSTAR WHO ALLEGES AFFAIR WITH DONALD TRUMP: I just heard the voice, and I went, well, you put yourself in a bad situation and bad things happen, so you deserve this. ANDERSON COOPER, CNN HOST: And you had sex with him? DANIELS: Yes. COOPER: You were 27, he was 60, were you physically attracted to him? DANIELS: No. COOPER: Not at all? DANIELS: No. COOPER: Did you want to have sex with him? DANIELS: No. But I didn't say no. I'm not a victim, I'm not. COOPER: It was entirely consensual. DANIELS: Oh, yes. (END VIDEO CLIP) PHILLIP: Then after that, Trump's attorney, Rudy Giuliani, inserted himself into all of this, denying Daniels' account. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) GEORGE STEPHANOPOLOUS, "THIS WEEK" ANCHOR: So the president does deny any sexual relationship with Stormy Daniels? RUDY GIULIANI, TRUMP ATTORNEY: He has. I have not, as I said, I'm not involved in that, but the reality is he denies it. (END VIDEO CLIP) PHILLIP: So fast forward now to January of 2023, just as Manhattan D.A. Alvin Bragg was asking a grand jury to hand up an indictment, Trump lashes out again, calling Daniels horseface and adding in all caps, never had an affair. COATES: And then three weeks before he was actually charged, Trump posted on Truth Social, I never had an affair with Stormy Daniels, nor would I have wanted to have an affair with Stormy Daniels. But, you know, Trump's constant denials have been met with heavy skepticism, or as maybe Senator Mitt Romney puts it. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) SEN. MITT ROMNEY (R-UT); As far as I know, you don't pay someone $130,000 not to have sex with you. (END VIDEO CLIP) PHILLIP: Our next guest is a friend and colleague of Stormy Daniels. Alana Evans says that she was almost in the room that night. In fact, she actually came up in Stormy Daniels' testimony today. [22:35:00] Prosecutor Susan Hoffinger asked Daniels, did you end up calling your friend Alana from the hotel room? Stormy Daniels replied, yes. Hoffinger, did you put her on speaker? Stormy Daniels, yeah. And she said, what are you guys doing? And he said, he being Trump, we're just hanging out. Hoffinger then asked, when you called her and had her on speakerphone, did Mr. Trump ask her to come over and join you as well? Stormy Daniels, yes. COATES: Now Evans says that Trump told her over the phone to come party, but she decided not to. Evans would eventually speak out publicly after the two initially denied the affair. Alana Evans joins me and Abby now. Alana, I see you took a deep breath for a second before you started speaking. This must be particularly uncomfortable to be here and see this moment play out in a Manhattan courtroom. ALANA EVANS, ADULT ACTRESS: Uncomfortable is definitely not the word that I would use. This is the first time that I have seen myself from Stormy's side being put into this equation. It's the first time that my name from her camp has been mentioned in this to see me talked about today during the testimony. It feels so good. It is so validating. It's this whole time I've done nothing but express the truth of what happened that night and the phone calls that occurred and spending time with her and the things that were discussed and then of course the way we spoke the next day and her accounting, her details of what had happened. I've lived that moment again and again and again. And to see it just being talked about that way during his case, it's incredibly empowering for me and I'm actually really thankful for it. PHILLIP: Yeah, I mean I remember you telling me about that exact thing that was described in court today last week and you also told me about Stormy that you thought that she was strong, she was ready to take the witness stand. We didn't see her physically but we've been reading all night long about her testimony hearing from people who were inside of the courthouse and what you've seen and heard. How do you think she did today? How do you think she came across to that jury? EVANS: Given the reports that have come out and the testimony that has been shared, it sounds to me like Stormy represented herself incredibly well. That she stood by her truth, that she shared who she is as a person, how she grew up, her life, the amazing woman that she is, shined today. And then of course when you switch sides and she's being questioned by his defense attorney and being treated as if she's not being truthful and having them behave as if there's inconsistencies in her story, I'm sure she stared right down at them and stood solid to her truth. I don't see any consistencies beyond the fact that Stormy was literally forced to sign an NDA. And I say forced because Donald Trump is such an incredibly powerful man that when this NDA took place, when the payoff took place, I can't imagine what choice she would have had otherwise. The power that Donald represents is the whole reason why I stayed away in the first place. The fear that I had back in 2006. And so I completely understand all of the circumstances surrounding this. I'm really proud of her. COATES: You know, there was a pretty contentious moment in the court. You talk about the potential for her standing strong. I want to just share with you, there was an exchange between the defense counsel for Donald Trump, a woman by the name of Susan Necheles. And she asked, am I correct that you hate President Trump? To which Stormy said, yes. Necheles said, and you want him to go to jail, right? Stormy said, I want him to be held accountable. Necheles then said, you want him to go to jail. Am I correct? She responded, if he's found guilty, yes. Now, there'll be a lot made about her motivation, whether she's biased, whether she can no longer be objected to be credible based on her feelings towards the former president of the United States. What did you think of that exchange? EVANS: I think it's completely natural and understandable for Stormy to have the feelings towards a man that has called her horseface, that has repeatedly called her a liar about an encounter that not only is clearly true, but, you know, had violated her in quite awful ways. [22:40:07] She, of course, we know that she consented, but she talked today about -- COATES: I want to clarify that when you say violated. I think you're going there right now. Yeah, excuse me. EVANS: Yes, yes. When she discussed today in her testimony about how she checked out, she blacked out from the moment that it began to the moment. In that moment, when you're a person, no matter your gender, having to check out of something that you're doing physically and sexually, it's because you're not feeling good about what you're doing. She talked about, to me, the morning after, that he chased her around the room in his underwear and during testimony talked about how he blocked a door. While she still consented, it's clear that she didn't feel good about what was happening and didn't feel good about having to share her body in that way. And that is what I mean by violated. PHILLIP: And do you think that that's relevant to bring up in the case? It kind of came up a little bit, but not fully. Do you think the jury should have heard about that? EVANS: That's an interesting question. I think that the reason why it is relevant is because it really shows exactly how Stormy was feeling in the moment. But more importantly, that residual feeling that you will have in these moments that can cause this type of honest discomfort and trauma moving forward, of course, it's going to affect how she feels about the man. But again, it doesn't change the truth about what happened. It doesn't change the truth about the payoff. And it doesn't change what the outcome of this case should be. And so I don't think that her feelings about him in that way should matter. COATES: Have you been called to testify in this case? EVANS: I have not. COATES: You ever received a subpoena of any kind or been speaking with the counsel on either side? EVANS: No, no one has reached out to me. And so when I heard that I was talked about today, I was a little, not surprised, but curious now it's moving forward if I'm going to start hearing from other authorities. So we'll see what happens. COATES: Curious as well. PHILLIP: Alana Evans, thank you so much. Great to hear from you on a day when you were a part of the conversation today in that courthouse. I Appreciate it. EVANS: Thank you. PHILLIP: And it was a split screen. That is, frankly, a sign of the times. You've got two candidates, one in a courtroom, the other at a somber speech on Capitol Hill. We're going to discuss with a former White House official, Jen Psaki, who's here with us next. (COMMERCIAL BREAK) [22:47:18] PHILLIP: A stunning split screen unfolded this week between a former president and a president of the United States, one at a Manhattan courthouse after a day of testimony from an adult film actress about an alleged affair, and the other, President Joe Biden on Capitol Hill, condemning a surge of anti-Semitism in the United States amid weeks of protests on college campuses. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) JOE BIDEN, U.S. PRESIDENT: Now, here we are, not 75 years later, but just seven and a half months later, and people are already forgetting, they're already forgetting that Hamas unleashed this terror. It was Hamas that brutalized Israelis. It was Hamas who took and continues to hold hostages. I have not forgotten, nor have you. And we will not forget. (END VIDEO CLIP) PHILLIP: Joining me now to discuss these dueling images is someone who is no stranger to messaging or the White House, for that matter. Many of you at home, former White House press secretary and MSNBC host, Jen Psaki. She is also the author of this brand new book, "Say More: Lessons from Work, The White House and the World". It's available today. We get to steal you for one evening. JEN PSAKI, MSNBC HOST AND FORMER WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY: I'm so happy to be here with you. PHILLIP: Jen, I wanted to talk to you about that kind of split screen for a couple of reasons. One, the message in this book is about how to have difficult conversations. It feels like the country right now needs somebody to sit them down and have a tough conversation about maybe one of the biggest, historically difficult issues ever, which is Middle East peace. So is President Biden getting there? Do you see him actually doing the job the way that you think it needs to be done right now? PSAKI: Well, another chapter I talk about in here is called "Say Less", which is the moment. And I use that example because diplomacy is very difficult to communicate about. There are valid critiques of how it's been imperfect, in part because the situation on the ground is imperfect and incredibly challenging. The best thing that the president can do right now is get to a ceasefire deal. I know that's what John Kirby said today. That is true. And the challenge is that you have Prime Minister Netanyahu, who, as you all know, is incentivized in some ways to continue this war, to continue it, because that's what his public wants. And so if you're in the White House, if you're on the national security team, what you need to do is keep a lot of those negotiations and discussions quiet in order to try to make progress. They haven't made enough progress yet, no question about it, but that's what they can do. That's what you can do as president or on the national security team. [22:50:05] PHILLIP: Less talk, more work behind the scenes. PSAKI: In part. Now, I do think it's important, Abby, you didn't mention the protests. I do think it's important that the president addressed it last week. I do think it's important he's going to Morehouse. I do think it's important and significant, given how close the historic relationship is, that there have been reports that I think that have now been confirmed from the White House and the administration that they have held back on weapons. The use of leverage is important, but it's also in moments like this, the diplomacy with Tony Blinken and Bill Burns and others are doing, we're probably not going to know all about it until there's a great story, TikTok, of it that tells us everything that happened. But that's how you get to a ceasefire deal. PHILLIP: Meanwhile, Donald Trump is outside of the courthouse every day, not talking about whatever his reelection campaign is about. I mean, as a Democrat, you might be overjoyed, but as a communicator, huge missed opportunity? PSAKI: For him not to be out of the courthouse? PHILLIP: Not to be using this unfiltered airtime to say something other than his grievances. PSAKI: Well, I think for him, the grievances is his message. I mean, he is speaking to the aggrieved in the country. And for the Biden campaign or for Democrats out there or for many people who may not love Joe Biden, but certainly don't like Donald Trump, it might be perplexing. How is this message working? Well, it's working in part because his message is simple. It's consistent. I think it's dark and incredibly dangerous, as do many people. But being aggrieved and being a target and being, which is such a crazy thing to say, his perception is he's a victim of two tiered system of justice, which by the way, there is a two tiered system of justice. He is not the victim of it. PHILLIP: He's not the poster child. PSAKI: That's his message. He is speaking to people who feel aggrieved out there in the country. And there is a population of people who relate to that. PHILLIP: Speaking of which, I actually want to play what Donald Trump said in an interview with WGAL today about the campus protests. And here's the analogy that he made. Well, I'll just read it because I think we don't have it. But it says, Biden is a threat to democracy. January 6th was nothing like this. They're ripping down all the schools. They're ripping down our institutions. They're protesting all over the place and very violent too. They're protesting all over the place. This is a threat to democracy. He is a threat to democracy because he's incompetent. PSAKI: This is a tactic out of the Kremlin playbook. It is projection. It works in authoritarian governments where leaders like Vladimir Putin, this is what we've seen over the last couple of years as it relates to Ukraine, say, I'm not going to use nuclear weapons. They're using nuclear weapons. I'm not attacking. They're attacking. This is what Trump is doing. I think anybody, even people who may find him intriguing, may consider voting for him. No, I shouldn't say anyone because there's still a huge percentage of people who still think he won the 2020 election. But it is factual and history tells us that he is the person who is the threat to democracy who had a role in the lead up to January 6th. I'm not talking from a legal front that can be decided by the courts. I'm talking about facts and history here. But projection makes it confusing for the public. It makes it feel everyone is corrupt. Everyone's a threat to our democracy. That's a strategy, and it's one out of the authoritarian playbook. PHILLIP: Yeah, I mean, he tries to boomerang everything that's coming toward him back at other people. This book, Jen, I want you to tell us a little bit about why you felt like you needed to write this. I've known you since I was like a little baby reporter, and you were the communications director in the White House. PSAKI: You were both babies together. PHILLIP: And, but I loved how you talked about in all the roles that you've had, growth that you've experienced, the lessons that you've learned, which is not to say that you start off in your first job really knowing everything, but you've learned a lot along the way, and it's in here. PSAKI: You don't, and this is a book, and when I left the White House, I had some moments to breathe, so everyone does. And I thought a lot about all the things I wanted to tell my kids. I mean, they're a little older than your daughter, but they're six and eight now. They're not quite old enough yet. And kind of the type of book that I wish I would have had in my 20s. A lot of times, I mean, people look at you, Abby, and they think, oh, she just like came out of the earth like this. PHILLIP: Well, none of us did, right? PSAKI: And is the anchor of a primetime show on CNN. You didn't. You worked your tail off. You made mistakes. You learned how to talk to bosses. You learned how to give feedback. You learned how to deal with bullies and people who are being tough. Sometimes people you were interviewing. Sometimes people you're asking tough questions. Those are the lessons that are important. I've been there for moments in history. You've covered moments in history. Some of that's in the book. Lots of stories about people know. But the mistakes, the moments I learned from, that's really what has made me who I am today. PHILLIP: Yeah, and you've had some tough bosses, right? On tough topics to be prepared to go. Sometimes it's not the hardest part, what you say to us in the media. It's what you say in the Oval Office to the President of the United States. Those lessons, what's the secret that people don't understand about what it takes to be able to do that? [22:55:03] PSAKI: I think a big thing took me some time to learn. Maybe you can relate to this too, is how to give feedback to tough bosses. And I talk about, not tough bosses, but any kind of boss. A President of the United States is a tough boss. PHILLIP: Any president is a tough boss. PSAKI: And some of it is, when I finally crossed the threshold and realized being a yes woman is not actually serving a boss. You need to figure out how to give direct and clear and straightforward advice, even when it's tough to hear. It took me some time to learn how to do that, but I talk a lot about that in the book as well. PHILLIP: All right, Jen Psaki, great to have you here. PSAKI: Great to be here. PHILLIP: It's just for a little bit. Thank you for joining us tonight. You can pick up her book out right now. And our coverage of the hush money trial of Donald Trump continues with a special edition of "Laura Coates Live", right after this. (COMMERCIAL BREAK) Laura Coates Live Aired May 07, 2024 - 23:00 ET THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED. (COMMERCIAL BREAK) [23:00:37] (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) DONALD TRUMP, FORMER PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: So, this was a very big day, a very revealing day as you see their case is totally falling apart. (END VIDEO CLIP) LAURA COATES, CNN HOST: I mean, a big day is an understatement. But looking past the Trump spin, did Stormy Daniels move the needle in favor of the prosecution or the defense? Welcome to a special edition of "Laura Coates Live" alongside Abby Phillip right here in New York. And look, day 13 of Trump's Manhattan hush money trial is now officially in the books, and it did not disappoint. For nearly four hours, adult film actress and director Stormy Daniels was on the stand just a few feet away from Trump, their first face-to- face encounter in years. And yes, she went there, taking us all inside of a Lake Tahoe hotel room where she alleges the two had sex back in 2006. Now, Trump says this absolutely never happened. But his past denials did not stop her from painting quite the picture. It was salacious, it was uncomfortable, and it was compelling. ABBY PHILLIP, CNN HOST: The former president watched with rapt attention. He was more invested than we have seen him at this trial. He was leaning in to watch Daniels's testimony. He was urging his attorneys to make objections. The one thing that is for sure, though, this testimony is what he certainly did not want the world to hear. During some of the most lurid moments, he was scowling, shaking his head, even audibly cursing at points. Moments like these with prosecutor Susan Hoffinger asking, "Can you briefly describe where you had sex with him?" Daniels's response? "The next thing I know, I was on the bed, somehow on the opposite side of the bed from where we had been standing. I had my clothes off. I believe my bra, however, was still on. We were in the missionary position." Defense attorney Susan Necheles objected. Judge Merchan sustaining that objection. Now, the flurry of objections going on from there as the exchange went on of what allegedly happened in that Lake Tahoe hotel room got more and more explicit. Even Judge Merchan appeared irritated at points, telling prosecutors, "The degree of detail that was happening there was just unnecessary." Trump's defense team tried to push for a mistrial after the break, a request that the judge, ultimately, rejected. COATES: Now, actually, you know, when Trump, their team, got their chance at cross-examination, it was fireworks. I mean, defense attorney Necheles asking Daniels if she hates Trump, to which she admitted simply, yes. And Necheles, she seized on this moment, repeatedly trying to undermine her credibility and, of course, her motivations. Even at one point, she accused Daniels of trying to extort money from Trump, with Daniels loudly replying -- quote -- "false." There was a lot of hype leading up to this testimony, as you all know. And you may have wondered, how did she present to the jury? How would she and how would she actually act on the stand? But the ultimate question is this, and it's for the jurors, how did they see all of today's drama? Will they draw connections between what she has said on the stand and the actual charges against Trump, which is the falsification of business records? And if you thought, by the way, today was wild, well, you best buckle up, because Stormy is back on the stand on Thursday. I want to bring in former deputy attorney general Harry Litman, Washington correspondent for "New York" Magazine, Olivia Nunzi, CNN legal analyst and criminal defense attorney Joey Jackson, CNN legal analyst and former federal prosecutor Jennifer Rogers, and CNN legal commentator and former Trump White House lawyer Jim Schultz. We've got a whole law school, law firm hopping. You count, too. (LAUGHTER) PHILLIP: It's okay. It's just going to be the two of us over here. COATES: It's okay. We have the auditors to our law class right now. I love it. PHILLIP: I'm just going to represent the jury. I'm the layman here. COATES: You're the one we want to hear from. But Harry, you were in the courtroom today. And I am dying to know. I need you to paint a picture here because when Stormy first walked into that courtroom, what was it like? HARRY LITMAN, FORMER U.S. ATTORNEY: Yeah. You know, we knew she was coming before the jury did because the D.A. -- excuse me -- defense had brought up some objection. So, we knew the next words we were going to hear -- the people call Stormy Daniels, which is what they did say, not Stephanie Clifford. And the jury, there was, you know, a visible but silent kind of excitement. And they were really focused. You know, they've been hearing about her from every different side for 12 days, right? And they were completely focused. This was the woman at the center of the whole storm, as it had been detailed by the D.A. And they were -- they were zeroed in. [23:05:02] COATES: What were her facial expressions like? Did she appear to be smug, nervous, uncomfortable, confident, what? LITMAN: Great question. I would -- if I have to go with one of those, I go with nervous. She answered pretty long. She did a lot of quips that didn't always land. She was intelligent. She detailed a whole kind of hardscrabble life that ended with a lot of achievements before she gets into and even after she gets into adult films. But I think her -- you know, one of the ways that she got in trouble with the judge and some of these extraneous details that obviously irked him, at one point, he made his own objection and sustained it, was by going too far outside the question. He later had Hoffinger. Merchan take her back and just tell her, shorter answers, please, listen to the question, and the like. So, I'd say nervous. COATES: What were the moments? I mean, I've been -- I've been polite. Let me get to the sex part. What were the moments that made them -- LITMAN: (INAUDIBLE). COATES: I don't know. (INAUDIBLE). I did my best. (LAUGHTER) Tell me about the point -- LITMAN: Yeah. COATES: -- how the jury was reacting when she was describing the details of being in that hotel room, when she actually got to the alleged sexual encounter. What was their body language like? Were they leaning in? Were they in -- were they with her? LITMAN: Yeah. So, I was looking very carefully. It's one of the best things about being in the courtroom. You can really see them. And I got to say, I wasn't sure. It was sort of three or four this way and a few more back. And I -- that core part of the story. And there were a lot of objections happening at the time for the reasons you're talking about. Merchan was very worried that some of the details would be prejudicial to Trump. So, the rhythm was a little bit arrested at the same time. But I found myself, more than with any witness in the trial, not clear. I think they believed her basic story, and she substantiated what she had to say. But were they with her in a way that'll really matter when they get into the jury room? Did they like her? It wasn't clear to me one way or another. PHILLIP: Olivia, I mean, Harry was there, but you know Stormy Daniels -- OLIVIA NUZZI, WASHINGTON CORRESPONDENT, NEW YORK MAGAZINE: Uh-hmm. PHILLIP: -- when she's not on a witness stand. What is she actually like, and do you get the sense from reading the transcript that that came across to the jury, or is it that whoever she really is, is something that might come across as inauthentic to a jury? NUZZI: She is a cool, thoughtful person. She is really smart, very shrewd, and very thoughtful. And she talks with a lot of nuance about this experience and about most other experiences in her life that I've heard her talk about. I've never felt that she's read as fake or putting on any type of front, sometimes to a fault, frankly. I don't know how that plays, though, in a courtroom. We were talking earlier about her evolution, about how she was thinking about the power dynamics between herself and the defendant, the former president. That's one thing when you're just having a conversation with somebody or when you're talking to a magazine or you're talking on a podcast. I think that might read quite differently in a court and might be rather confusing. COATES: Yeah, when you look at this and thinking about how this all plays. Jen, I want to bring you in here because, you know, this is about documents. I mean, Jim is already like, yes, it's the documents case, and we're talking about it. This is a documents case. But is there some method to the madness of having her described with detail and particularity what happened, as she alleges, in the hotel room? Is it to try to buttress her credibility and her memory? JENNIFER RODGERS, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: Well, you know, as the prosecution argued when we had this mistrial motion, it all goes to his intent, like, why did he so badly want this story not to come out? Right? Because it's salacious. I mean, look at the reactions that Harry is talking about from the jurors. I mean, everyone is perking up and listening. This is what he never wanted to get out there. This is why he was so intent on making sure that she had to be quieted, right? That she had to be hushed up with this hush money payment. So, that was part of it. I mean, they also, of course, wanted her to corroborate some of what the jury has already heard from David Pecker, from Keith Davidson, the lawyer, what Michael Cohen will say when he gets on the stand. So, that's another part of the reason. But the piece about the sex, and I don't think prosecutors necessarily wanted her to go into all that detail, I think they mis-stepped a little bit there and didn't get her under control like they, frankly, should have done. But to the extent that they're defending getting into that at all, that's how they do it. COATES: I mean, part of what of we were hearing from the courtroom, that it wasn't so much that the prosecution was asking her questions after question to get that widened scope, but that she was giving long-winded answers that got to the points they were supposed to avoid. JAMES SCHULTZ, CNN LEGAL COMMENTATOR: Yeah, I think she -- you know, the judge even said, like, answer the question that's asked, right? So -- and I think that was him trying to gain control of that. He had her go back with the lawyer. I think you're right. I think they're trying to -- they're trying to portray this as this is something that Donald Trump never wanted to see come to light. And I think they did that. They got that job done today. They may have risked some appellate issues long term in doing so. [23:10:02] And I don't think the prosecution was trying to go that far, but they lost control of it. COATES: Yeah, I mean -- JOEY JACKSON, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: Let me defend Stormy. (LAUGHTER) COATES: There's the defense counsel. (LAUGHTER) PHILLIP: I'm glad you said that because I want to be clear here. This is not some -- Stormy has her story. But it's a question of the prosecutors, their strategy, and how they executed it. That's really at issue here. JACKSON: No, no question about it, Abby. But she has a story to tell, and I think she wanted to be heard. And to the extent that people would have believed that there was no affair or no connection or interaction or however you want to frame it, um, she had a lot to say about that. And I think there's a certain process that she had to go through in stating her piece. Yes, you prep witnesses as a prosecutor. Yes, you give them -- it's not a script, but you certainly let them know the areas you're going to go into. You talk about if there's going to be any exhibits introduced to you, how that'll happen. But I think she wanted to tell her story. And I think the devil is always in the details. And by giving those details, I think it gives it credibility. When you talk about satin pajamas, you talk about boxers, you talk about Melania, you talk about other things, it gives it context, it gives it perspective. Did she potentially say too much? Okay, that's open for interpretation. But I think the core nature of this, with Trump denying, denying it didn't happen, is look, I'm not a liar, I have my reputation to protect, too. And what's not in dispute is that there was a payment to be made. What's not in dispute is it was $130,000. What's not in dispute is the fact that she dealt with and interacted with Michael Cohen to get this deal done. And so, I think she was there to tell her story, tell it loudly, tell it clearly, and say, whatever you think about me, this is what occurred. NUZZI: Let me just add, you know, something that has really bothered her over these years, that she's been a public figure associated with Donald Trump these last six years, is that it doesn't matter to his base, it doesn't matter to a certain unpersuadable faction of the American public, it doesn't matter how many times she corrects the record, how many times she tells them that they're wrong about whatever it is that they believe about her. The facts don't matter. They are impervious to facts. So, I think this seems probably like an opportunity to definitively state what the story is. COATES: Yeah. And, you know, when you look at -- there was a moment, and we talked about the prep, it seemed like Necheles, who was the defense counsel for Donald Trump, she began her cross with the idea of, you rehearsed these moments, right? That's how they began. This is not -- it wasn't easing into the tension. It was confrontational from the beginning. And I guess Stormy was very clear of, no, if you're implying rehearsal as mean, I have not been prepped, but I have been told what you say, that's not what happened here. Talk to me about that interaction between Necheles and Stormy because up until now, we haven't actually seen real hostility between counsel and a witness. LITMAN: Yeah, this was as dramatic as we've seen. What you just said, Laura, happened 15 times, where Necheles goes for broke. And rather than, as you're sort of taught, you go up to the line of making the point, and then go to the next one, she said, and you're really lying about this. She continually asserted the kind of final insinuation. And basically, every time, Daniels said, no, false. And it arrested her rhythm very discernibly. Plus, there were a lot of objections. So, you know, rhythm is the soul of cross-examination. She should be going quick. She should be drawing a yes to every answer. And instead, it was much more sort of staggered, and I felt ineffective for that reason. She went for broke, I think, inadvisably. PHILLIP: Here's one interaction with Susan Necheles that did seem to break through. This was with Stormy. She says, you were looking to get extort money from President Trump, right? Stormy says, false. Necheles says, well, that's what you did, right? Stormy says, false. But it's not false that she got money from President Trump. JACKSON: But she didn't extort it, right? PHILLIP: Sure. It's not -- right, but she -- COATES: Well, explain why that's a legal change. JACKSON: It's a very significant thing. If you want to talk about nondisclosure agreements, which are lawful and legal, I have a story to tell. You want to pay me for my silence, particularly appropriate. She's not extorting or stealing or getting anything under false pretenses. He has an absolute right not to engage in that type of contractual arrangement. He did engage in a contractual arrangement. The critical issue here is, what was the purpose and intent? Was he attempting to protect his family? Was he attempting to deceive the electorate? And I think that's the critical question, ultimately, Abby, Laura, that the jury has to come to a determination of. Did you falsify these business records, ledgers, checks, right, invoices, for the purpose of, right, with the intent of concealing, hiding of this from the public so that, what we all know now very well, wouldn't have gotten out before the election and potentially affected his electoral process. NUZZI: And she has always maintained -- LITMAN: And Abby -- please, go ahead. NUZZI: She has always maintained that money was not the objective, that maybe it was a bonus, but that that was not why she signed this agreement. COATES: Well, she went back and forth today on that point, though, right? The motivation was shifting over time. NUZZI: In her telling, over the years, it has been pretty consistent. [23:15:00] She did not want the story out for a number of personal reasons. And ultimately, she came to fear for her safety after this encounter in a parking lot in Las Vegas when someone threatened her, we don't know who, and she has never said that she knows who, to tell her to be silent. Ultimately, Donald Trump was the one with more to lose, obviously, which is why he allegedly signed this agreement and bought her silence. But she's always maintained she was successful. She was successful at a pretty early age in her field. She was a director. She was an actress. She had multiple homes. She testified today that she was not looking for a payout, and she was not negotiating this payout. She was not haggling to get a better deal. COATES: Show of hands, who remembers the Trump presidency chaos? (LAUGHTER) COATES: I mean, all that's happening, right? Stand by. PHILLIP: All of us lived through it, in a way. (LAUGHTER) COATES: This cast of characters. Stand by, everyone. We're going to get back to you as well. It was a wild day with wild testimony, and even the judge said that something was unnecessary. So, the question we've been towing around here, did the prosecution go too far? Well, a retired New York judge who was in court joins me next. (COMMERCIAL BREAK) [23:20:35] COATES: The testimony from Stormy Daniels triggering questions about who was really in control of the court during Donald Trump's hush money trial. Judge Judge Merchan saying that some people may have felt some kind of way about Daniels's testimony, saying -- quote -- "There were some things that probably would have been better left unsaid." Trump's attorneys arguing the salacious details about the alleged affair between Daniels and Trump violated court rules. They even moved to have the entire case dismissed. Now, the judge, of course, tossed that motion, but he did tell prosecutors this: "I think the degree of detail we're going into here is just unnecessary." But Judge Merchan warned that he may have to embarrass Trump if his attorneys can't control him, saying -- quote -- "I understand that your client is upset at this point, but he is cursing audibly, and he is shaking his head visually, and that's contemptuous. It has the potential to intimidate the witness and the jury can see that." Joining me now, Judge George Grasso, retired Queens County Supreme Court judge. Judge, thank you so much for being here. But you were there earlier today in the court. Talk to me about how you view Judge Merchan's control of the courtroom. GEORGE GRASSO, RETIRED QUEENS COUNTY SUPREME COURT JUDGE: I think it was perfect. As a matter of fact, when we came back after the lunch break and Mr. Blanche got up and requested a mistrial, the first thing I thought of is something that the judge said rather promptly in pushing back on that a bit. He said, "I would have thought you would have been objecting more." The judge was doing sua sponte objections. The judge was in control. But there's a balance. It's not the judge's job to do the defense attorney's job. So, I was -- part of the thing I had in the back of my mind, were they laying back and not objecting, so they might think they would have a stronger issue to try and go for a mistrial, or were they just not doing the job the way they should do the job? But the judge did his job. As far as salaciousness, I don't know. I mean, I was there, I saw the whole thing, I would give it like a PG-13, really. (LAUGHTER) There were certain things that she was saying where I think that they really should have objected. She was saying things like how she was feeling. I felt like I was going to black out. Jump up, object. You know, I don't know that it would be appropriate that she's testifying about her feelings in this context. But they just let her go. So, several times, the judge stepped in. The defense was unnaturally quiet, and then they came in looking for a mistrial. So, I think the judge is doing a great job controlling his courtroom, and I think we made the right ruling. COATES: You know, I had to tell you, I was surprised particularly that there were not more objections being raised. And by the way, we know they're not allowed to have so-called speaking objections, where they're doing the television moment, where they say objection and they give you a paragraph as to all the reasons why -- GRASSO: Right. COATES: -- they want the jury to hear it. GRASSO: Right. COATES: But, as you can imagine, there are instances that you want to make a point and risk the slap on the wrist from a judge about a statement you're trying to convey to the jury. I was surprised about that. But there was this moment. The judge, Todd Blanche, saying there was no way to un-ring the bell because they were -- there were some insinuation that this was not consensual. Although she was saying it was, there were other statements that were being made. How did you feel about that line of testimony? Did that raise sufficient cause that he could say the bell had not been un-rung? GRASSO: Well, it certainly -- that's what I was referring to when I said she was thought testifying to what she was thinking. COATES: Right. GRASSO: It certainly, in my opinion, would have been a sustainable objection. But for the defense counsel to sit back, not object, and then come back with the bell can't be un-rung. And let's just do -- a mistrial is an extraordinary remedy. So, no, I don't think it rose to that level. And, you know, the judge made everything very clear. And then it seemed that they were more on the ball. But furthermore, where they did object, I would say during Stormy Daniels testimony, they were getting 80, 90% of their objections sustained. [23:25:03] COATES: Uh-hmm. GRASSO: So, they could never turn around and say, well, judge, we object and you ignore us. Quite the contrary was true. COATES: Well, there is a moment to the mistrial, as you mentioned, an extraordinary remedy, oftentimes not granted. But there is also a moment at the conclusion of the prosecution's case in chief where the defense can say, Your Honor, there has been no chance at meeting their burden of proof. We don't need to put on a case here. GRASSO: Right. COATES: If that were the case right now and the defense is well within their rights at the close of the presentation, the government's evidence to do this, if all that you have heard so far is what the case is, would you entertain a motion? GRASSO: Well, we got to get to the point where the people close their case in chief before I could give a definitive response to that. I will say, I think that this is a very viable case. I think Judge Merchan's initial ruling, I think his decision was on February 15th, upholding the grand jury indictment. I think in the context of the way this case was laid out and in the context of what the people promised they would do in their opening statement, I think they're putting on a very, very strong case. I think the issue isn't going to be the case being dismissed at the close of the case. I think they're a long way there to closing that up. But the issue is going to be, is this going to be beyond a reasonable doubt for 12 jurors? And I believe very strongly Michael Cohen is going to be the key. We've had several witnesses that have kind of brought us to the door of thinking that, hey, this may be a case that goes beyond a reasonable doubt, but it's going to be Michael Cohen that's going to have to take us, take the jury through that door, and ultimately connect the dots with defendant Trump. And if he does that, I think the likelihood will be high for a conviction. If Michael Cohen falters, I think the likelihood will be high for at least a mistrial. So, that's my view on where we are right now. COATES: Judge George Grasso, thank you so much for joining us. GRASSO: Pleasure to be with you. Thank you for having me. COATES: I want to bring back in our panel because that's a lot riding on Michael Cohen here. LITMAN: No pressure. (LAUGHTER) SCHULTZ: It all rides on Michael Cohen. PHILLIP: Yeah, but he's not wrong. RODGERS: Always has. SCHULTZ: Yeah. I mean, he's the one that has to make the connection between the payment, the business record. If he's not making it, nobody else is. And if they don't believe him, this case goes down. So, I mean, lot rides on him. We're going to see a lot tomorrow in terms of cross-examination, further cross-examination of Stormy Daniels. I think they'll continue down this narrative of that she was going after the money, that she had -- you know, that she was concerned that she needed the money before the election, right? That was some of the evidence that's put on so far. I think you're going to see more and more of that. It was -- you know, the idea that they cross-examined her and had her say, yes, I'd like to see him put in prison, you know, and that they brought out the tweet saying she would do a dance if that happened, I think that's all stuff that's going to be good for the defense. But again, this is not making the connection to the business records at the end of the day. Michael Cohen has to do that, and it's all riding on his credibility. PHILLIP: I mean, you have to imagine that whatever happens with the rest of Stormy Daniels's testimony, Michael Cohen's testimony cannot go the way that this has gone with the mistakes on both sides, from the prosecutors and the defense. Both sides have to clean up their house by the time they get to that witness because he is, of all the characters, he has so much baggage with Donald Trump. He has -- he has such a colorful personality. It's like Stormy Daniels times 10. RODGERS: Yeah, we'll see if he can control himself. I mean, really, the issue is going to be they have what they had for Stormy, plus, like you said, more tweets, more podcasts, more TV appearances, more stuff. He's just going to have to be ready to just, when they put it up, you say, yep, I said that, yep, I said that, yep, I said that, but I'm telling you the truth and, you know, here's how you know. And the problem is, you know, they would have had Allen Weisselberg in a different world where he didn't perjure himself and get sent back to prison. But they can't bring him back again at this trial because, presumably, he'll do the same thing again and just lie on the stand. So, you know, I don't know if there's anyone other than Michael Cohen and Allen Weisselberg who actually have that direct, yes, I had a conversation with Trump about this reimbursement scheme. You know, we don't know. I mean, unless there's some surprise out there, those are the two guys, which means Michael Cohen is your only available one. LITMAN: They have Weisselberg in some part, though. That writing where Weisselberg lays it all out. COATES: Handwritten notes. LITMAN: I think it's the biggest document in the case. It's obviously his doing. So, at that point, it's really got to be the defense theory, if they have one, that somehow Weisselberg and Cohen conspired, you know, without Trump's knowledge. That's a heavy load to lift. COATES: You know, I want to point out, too -- I mean, we obviously don't have any audio or visual into the courtroom. We're getting a lot from the transcripts and the judge pointing out. That's you, of course. The judge pointing out that, you know, the jury could visibly see if Trump was being contemptuous. [23:30:01] Let's just show this little bit of a graphic we have here to bring everyone inside the courtroom, where this is what it looks like. I mean, you know, might as well the chip paint. But if you go inside, right, you've got Donald Trump where the circle is, sitting there. You've got the witness stand on the other side of the judge and the jury box to the far right with those 18 jurors. And so, you see it is kind of a kitty corner thing from the witness stand to the court reporter. But you've got this shot from the jury box, Abby, to be able to visibly see where Donald Trump is. And so, the judge, if the judge can hear him making statements and swearing and jerking his head -- PHILLIP: The jury can see it all. COATES: They can see it all. LITMAN: One hundred percent. PHILLIP: Yeah, they can see it all. COATES: And you saw that, Harry, that they could see it. So, I mean, there must have been ping ponging moments where the jury was looking. I mean, I know I would be looking to see what Trump is saying. And if I'm Trump, I'm probably trying to make my demonstrable body language evident. LITMAN: That was it exactly. And you had the exchange at sidebar where Merchan says, you've got to keep him from grimacing and from swearing, et cetera. And to Jen's point, when Michael Cohen hits the stand, will he be able to control himself or will he, you know, be doing 360s with his head? JACKSON: I see it a little bit differently in terms of Michael Cohen. And here's what I see in the minority here. I don't think Michael Cohen is the end-all, be-all, and here's why. I think the prosecution has spent a significant amount of time corroborating the things that Michael Cohen will say, starting out with Pecker, of course, being at the "National Enquirer," laying out the catch-and-kill scheme, going into Davidson, speaking about he's the one attorney, of course, who represented Stormy Daniels, Karen McDougal, bringing in the accountant, bringing in the comptroller to talk about the documents, the invoices, the checks, et cetera. I think the prosecution has done all they could to make Michael Cohen as irrelevant as he possibly could be. Yes, he's an important witness. He certainly adds fabric and color. It'll be a colorful day. It'll be Stormy times 10, Abby, as you mentioned. No question. But I don't think it ride and falls on him because they have done all they could. The prosecution -- PHILLIP: But, Joey, the thing that they have not done is shown that Donald Trump either directed or knew about the falsification. JACKSON: Here is my answer. PHILLIP: That's the thing. And who can do that? JACKSON: Here's my answer. PHILLIP: But -- JACKSON: Here's my answer, very briefly. What happens, Abby, is in cases, you're allowed to draw reasonable inferences from the facts. And therefore, very few cases get tried. And there's a smoking gun. You saw him do it. So, you have to, as we always say as lawyers, bring your common sense into that courtroom. Let me tell you a story, ladies and gentlemen, and that story begins with Pecker, and it ends with whoever the last witness is. And you don't have to rely upon Michael Cohen. You have to rely upon your good judgment, and you have to rely upon what the evidence tells you. PHILLIP: A quick last word, Jim. SCHULTZ: When they go to Michael Cohen, though, they're going to say -- they're going to take Hope Hicks's testimony. He wanted to be in the campaign, was always kicked out. Tried to get in the room, was always kicked out. He went rogue from time to time. Never spoke on behalf of the campaign. Really wanted to get in the White House. Rejected from the White House. This guy wanted to get in the White House, wanted to be within the circle of power. Couldn't get it. So, all he wanted to do was be a boss pleaser and get this thing done in order to curry favor with the boss. JACKSON: And that's why President Trump, from his personal account, was writing checks to Michael Cohen. Okay. In other words, I get your point, but the bottom line is going to be -- come on, guys, use your common sense. The president's signing personal checks to him, but he's going rogue. Stop. Right? let's see what the jury says. PHILLIP: I think you're all a little bit right. (LAUGHTER) I'm just going to say it. You're making the defense case. You're making the prosecution's case. We'll see what the jury ends up saying about all of this. Everybody, stand by. The hush money trial is moving along with the prosecution saying that they have about two weeks of testimony left. But down in Florida, Trump's classified documents trial is indefinitely postponed. We'll explain what just happened there next. (COMMERCIAL BREAK) [23:38:22] COATES: Donald Trump scoring a pretty big win in Florida today. Judge Eileen Cannon indefinitely suspending the Mar-a-Lago classified documents case. Why? Well, the judge is saying there are just too many issues, right, in the classified evidence that still need to be worked out. PHILLIP: A trial was initially supposed to start in late May. And while no new date has been set, Judge Cannon does think that the issues at hand should be resolved by late July. Our panel is back with us. Late July, however, that doesn't mean that the trial could start any time soon. Jen, what is going on here with this judge? RODGERS: One of two things. Judge Cannon is just slow walking this thing because she wants Trump to get what he wants, which is to delay this beyond the election, in which case if he is re-elected, he will just shut down the case and or pardon himself and, you know, or both. Or she is literally so incompetent that she cannot do her job and decide these outstanding motions and move this case through its paces to trial. She is a new judge. A lot of people talk about how inexperienced she is. Classified documents can be complicated. Yada, yada, yada. And yet there's just no excuse for the way this has proceeded. Some of these motion issues are easy, are frivolous. There is no reason that she can't be further along than she is and just throwing up her hands and saying, wow, I know I was supposed to go to trial this month, but, gee, I haven't been able to get the work done, we're going to have to push it back. It's ludicrous. COATES: Surely, she is aware of the accusations that this is perhaps partisan- motivated. That doesn't even affect her at all. SCHULTZ: I don't think it does. I think she's probably looking at the hand slap she got before and worried about that. In addition, the Classified Information Procedures Act does get a little, you know, messy sometimes, right? [23:40:04] Because the defense is probably wanting to use classified information that the government is saying, no way, you can't use that in court. So, all that needs to get argued before the judge. It's all done behind closed doors. And, you know, the defense can play that delay game by trying to push as much confidential information -- classified information, I should say, before the court saying, look, we need to use it, and defense -- and the prosecution say, no, you don't, and they're going to fight over it. COATES: That shouldn't stop, Harry, being able to at least set a trial date and then work towards the goal of, by this date, we've got to resolve this. LITMAN: No kidding. One month messy, not six months messy, not indefinite mothball messy. And really, it's not very messy here at all. Because remember, there's nothing he's charged with that has anything to do with the content of the paper. It's just the way it was marked. So, they could try to exert pressure on a couple documents, but this is straightforward. And really, ludicrous is not too strong a word. To move it back a month or two, but to literally take it off calendar, and this, by the way, is a cut and dried, very strong case, it's unconscionable. SCHULTZ: I agree. I think the case is a pretty simple case. LITMAN: Yeah. SCHULTZ: And I think the defense is probably pushing us along and exploiting me, the fact that this judge is more than willing to take her time to rule on these motions. And I think that's probably what's happening. PHILLIP: And I mean, let's just remember, she's a Trump-appointee. It's not -- it's not even just that she is a new judge. There were also questions when she was being confirmed about her qualifications for the judgeship to begin with. So, she's got all of this kind of in the background. And Jack Smith made a choice in this case to take it down to the Southern District of Florida. And there was a possibility always that this could have ended up in her lap. And it has. And Donald Trump, it just looks like, has gotten really, really lucky here. JACKSON: Yeah. You know, Abby, certainly, we could accept the fact that she's a new judge, et cetera. People are new at things. That's fine. But you have great people around you. I have not seen the -- look, federal staffs, these judges have phenomenal staff, people who are brilliant, who could assist you. So, I don't buy the argument that she's fumbling because she's inexperienced. It seems to me she clearly has an agenda here, right? I mean -- and based upon the agenda, Trump-appointee, as you noted, I think she's slow rolling the case. Yes, there are significant issues. There are motions that need to be delved through. Judges delve through motions in all kinds of cases every day and twice on Sunday. What makes this different? Classified documents, okay, but the fact that she's doing it, it seems to me to be pretty obvious that it's -- the thumb is on the scale for Mr. Trump. COATES: Olivia, really quick, how does this demonstrate that they're more afraid of this case than they are the others? Obviously, this would be a Florida jury that I thought Trump was saying politically that would be better for him than, say, what he thinks is a Manhattan- biased jury. NUZZI: I mean, the allegations in this case are very serious, not to say that they're not in other cases. We have photographic evidence that was turned up in these raids, right, of how he was storing these documents. And it goes against, frankly, as a political issue. It goes against how he talks about himself on foreign policy, how he talks about himself as a world leader. And the further that we get into this, the further that she drags this out. The nominating conventions are this summer. The closer that it gets to him being officially the nominee, potentially the president again, I think that he's going to be talking more and more than he even is now about a witch hunt, and it seems like she's inclined to help him. SCHULTZ: If this case were brought in Washington, D.C., on a rocket docket like Washington, D.C. has, and with judges who have handled classified information cases time and time again, we'd be to trial by now. COATES: For sure. Probably even before anything in Manhattan, right? It wouldn't have been the audacity of Alvin Bragg, they said, going first. Thank you, everyone. So important to hear all your perspectives. Up next, a message from President Biden to the Jewish community. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) JOE BIDEN, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: I see your fear, your hurt, your pain. Let me reassure you, as your president, you're not alone, you belong, you always have and you always will. (END VIDEO CLIP) PHILLIP: And he invoked a giant in the fight against hate and antisemitism. Elisha Wiesel, his son, will join us next. (COMMERCIAL BREAK) [23:48:48] (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) COATES: President Biden taking the podium at the Capitol today with a stark warning for America, saying there is a -- quote -- "ferocious surge in antisemitism across the country, and Americans need to come together to fight it." Listen. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) BIDEN: This ancient hatred of Jews didn't begin with the Holocaust. It didn't end with the Holocaust, either. That hatred was brought to life on October 7th of 2023. On a sacred Jewish holiday, the terrorist group Hamas unleashed the deadliest day of the Jewish people since the Holocaust. That's why I'm calling on all Americans to stand united against antisemitism and hate in all its forms. My dear friend, and he became a friend, the late Elie Wiesel said -- quote -- "One person of integrity can make a difference." We have to remember that now more than ever. (END VIDEO CLIP) PHILLIP: Elie and Marion Wiesel's son and chairman of the Elie Wiesel Foundation, Elisha Wiesel, joins us now. President Biden invoking your father there, but also speaking at a really tense moment, both in the war, but also here in this country. [23:50:00] I've been saying this for a while now because it seems to me the country kind of needs somebody to help it understand this moment. Is this what you wanted to hear from him? This was an incredible speech by President Biden. I was actually at the very first Days of Remembrance speech ever in 1979. I sat in President Carter's lap as my father spoke to the audience. That is actually the moment that my father met President Biden. President Biden sent him a note afterwards, and they began a friendship. Today's speech was phenomenal. It was -- it was everything that he needed to cover, I think, for the Jewish people in this country to hear. He talked about family being the place where Holocaust education needs to happen and antisemitism needs to be fought. He talked about how his own father brought them to Dachau, spoke about it at the dinner table. That was a key part of his message. He spoke about 10/7, how what happened on October 7th is very much modern antisemitism, that that's what drove these people to go in and murder 1,200 innocent people, do the terrible desecrations that they did to babies, teenagers, sexual violence, the unbelievable deeds. And then he called that antisemitism on campus, and he did it in a very, very direct and crisp way. He said, calls for the elimination of Israel are genocide and effectively are the worst antisemitism you can be spouting. That's really, I think, what the country needs to hear. It's very centering, very important. Very relieved the president did this today. COATES: I want to play, actually, the moment that he does address the protests that we've been seeing on college campuses today. Listen. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) BIDEN: We've seen a ferocious surge of antisemitism in America and around the world. On college campuses, Jewish students blocked, harassed, attacked while walking to class. Antisemitism, antisemitic posters, slogans calling for the annihilation of Israel, the world's only Jewish state. (END VIDEO CLIP) COATES: I mean, the ADL is reporting there is 140% increase in antisemitic incidents just from 2022 to 2023, and increasing after October 7th. When you see these figures and then you hear the president of the United States having to even make a speech like this in the year 2024, that strikes such a chord. ELISHA WIESEL, SON OF MARION AND NOBEL PEACE PRIZE LAUREATE ELIE WIESEL: It does. And thank God he's doing it. And thank God he's doing it from within the Democratic Party, because there are irresponsible legislators within the more extreme fringes of the Democratic Party who are 100% part of the problem. It's interesting. You know, J Street, which is about as left as you get in the Jewish world, they have decided not to endorse Jamaal Bowman because he uses words that are so charged, so loaded they can only be seen as antisemitic in nature. You know, Jamaal Bowman goes and he supports the protesters, you know, who are calling for the elimination of the state of Israel, and says, oh, yeah, this is all peaceful. I don't see anything peaceful as a Jewish person when I see banners and slogans and a call to globalize the Intifada. For those of us who remember what the Intifada was in 2000 and later, in the later 2000s, these were bloody murderous attacks, buses being blown up, the Sbarro pizza bombing. So, there's a lot of irresponsible behavior that's coming from some of the further fringes of President Biden's party, which is why it's so important for him to make a strong message. PHILLIP: At the same time, there is a war going on, and Israel is a close ally of the United States. Every time President Biden, you know, has tough words for Benjamin Netanyahu, there are definitely people on the right who say, oh, he's giving in to the far-left, he's antisemitic. Is that unfair in your mind? Is there room for President Biden to exert pressure on an ally in this circumstance and still be a strong ally to the Jewish people? WIESEL: Of course. And President Biden has every right to tell Prime Minister Netanyahu what he thinks, what his views are. Ultimately, it's going to be Israel's responsibility to decide how to execute. When you come to words and discussions between friends, I do believe that the friendship between Israel and the United States is as profound a diplomatic friendship as can exist. Actions are what matter, though. And some of the reports, when we hear that aid may get conditioned, that, you know, certain weapons supplies might be stopped, that's when I think the advisors around President Biden should just take a moment and think a little bit about history, because there is precedent for some of this. My father, at that 1979 speech, made a very, very central point about bombing the tracks in Auschwitz. Roosevelt's advisors did not agree that the bombing of tracks in Auschwitz was a military priority. Well, right now, I will tell you, as someone with family in Israel, as someone who's concerned about the civilians there, the Hamas terror tunnels that still exist in Rafah represent a threat in the same way that those tracks into Auschwitz represented a threat to European Jewry. [23:55:03] And they need to be dismantled. That Hamas terror infrastructure needs to be taken apart. So, I very much hope that, you know, President Biden's advisors are thinking about that as they make their own decisions about how to proceed. COATES: It's a very powerful conversation and insight that you've given us today, and I do think it's so important that you heard it tonight as well. Thank you. WIESEL: Thank you. PHILLIP: It was good to see you. Thanks. WIESEL: Good to see you. COATES: Elisha Wiesel, everyone. Thank you so much. And you know what? We're going to hear more from President Biden tomorrow because Erin Burnett is sitting down with the president for an exclusive interview in Wisconsin. It's going to air tomorrow night right here on CNN at 7 p.m. Eastern. PHILLIP: Thank you so much for watching. Our coverage continues with "Anderson Cooper 360." That's next. (COMMERCIAL BREAK) [00:00:07] …