Anderson Cooper 360 Degrees Aired May 09, 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. Welcome to our continuing special primetime coverage of the Trump New York hush money trial. Day 14 saw prosecutors focus through a current bookkeeper and a former White House staffer on how closely their boss watched every dollar, including far smaller sums than his checks to Michael Cohen. Also, day two of cross examination for Stormy Daniels, perhaps at the defendant's behest, whether or not it helped his case. And after the jury left, two defense motions, one to modify the gag order that Mr. Trump is under to allow him to talk about Stormy Daniels, the other asking for a mistrial for the second time this week. Judge Juan Merchan denying the gag order motion saying, and I quote, "Your client's track record speaks for itself." He also denied the mistrial motion, which the defense had based on what it claimed was prejudicial testimony by Stormy Daniels about sex with Mr. Trump. The judge said the defense brought it on themselves by denying a sexual encounter had taken place, meaning he said that the jury needed to be able to determine whether to believe her or the defense. He also scolded the defense for not objecting to items they were now citing as grounds for a mistrial. Prosecutors meantime said they will not be calling the other woman who is alleging an affair with the former president, former Playboy model Karen McDougal, whose silence he also secured prior to the 2016 election. Afterwards, he had this to say. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) DONALD TRUMP, FORMER PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: I don't think we have to do any explaining. I'm not allowed to anyway, because this judge is corrupt. He's a corrupt judge. This judge, what he did, and what his ruling was is a disgrace. Everybody knows what happened today. He's a corrupt judge and he's totally conflicted. (END VIDEO CLIP) COOPER: As for the woman he tried and failed to get his gag order lifted for Stormy Daniels. She tweeted this about an hour ago, quoting now, "Real men respond to testimony by being sworn in and taking the stand in court. Oh ... wait. Nevermind." Joining us now, New York defense attorney, Arthur Aidala who's in court today, also best-selling author and former federal prosecutor, Jeffrey Toobin, CNN primetime anchors Abby Phillip and Kaitlan Collins. Also someone who's known Judge Merchan for more than 15 years, former New York judge Jill Konviser and CNN Kara Scannell who's been covering this case from the beginning. I want to talk to the two people who were in court. Kara, what did you - what was it like? KARA SCANNELL, CNN CORRESPONDENT: I mean at the end, when the judge was going back and forth with Trump's attorneys over these motions, it got heated, separate and apart from the testimony today, and that was in part because Trump's team was arguing for a mistrial. The second time this week that they've done that and saying that this was unfair testimony, it was prejudicial. They're saying Stormy Daniels changed her story because some of her testimony intimated that there was a power dynamic at play, and a height differential, and she wasn't sure she could leave. But they said that that was unfair to the jury because at the time in 2016, she was saying that this was consensual, and that is what Trump was trying to stop, if you believe the prosecution, and not these additional details. But the judge said that this was of their own making. He said the other day he was surprised that Trump's attorneys didn't object more, and that he sustained the first objection. He objected himself. But today he went even further, and he said, "Why on," he's talking about Trump's attorney, "Why on earth she wouldn't object to the mention of a condom, I don't understand." So he was saying that they let far too much detail come in themselves before they objected, and he was saying that, in fact, because they denied that this affair ever happened, that the jury was - it was fair for the jury to hear the detail, to draw their own conclusion about whether they believed her or not. COOPER: Okay. Here's what I really want to know. I want to - we were outside the court reading your missives and others, our reporters inside the court. It was very hard for us on the outside, and we talked about this on the air, to see - to get a sense of how was the jury responding to this tense cross-examination of Stormy Daniels. Stormy Daniels, at times, seemed more relaxed, perhaps, than she had been in her actual testimony the previous day, although it's hard to tell just from text messages, but she seemed to be laughing more. And I'm wondering, I want to get your take on this, and then Arthur, because you were also there, what was it like inside the courtroom? How was the jury responding? SCANNELL: I mean, out of the gate, Susan Necheles just was pounding her with questions, and Daniels was responding so quickly that twice the judge had to both tell them, stop, you're talking over each other. The court reporter can't take this down. [20:05:02] So it was very combative, but Daniels was holding her ground. She would - she was making some jokes. She made a joke about she's being pressed on how she's profited from this, and she said, well, not unlike Mr. Trump over there, who's profited from his indictments. This jury is very poker-faced. I have not seen any reaction from them reacting to testimony. They've just taken it all straight. They take notes, a number of them, flip through their notepad, but I have not seen any reaction. The only reaction I saw from a juror today was when a different witness had become emotional. They lifted up a box of tissues and handed it to the security officer who handed it to the witness. But otherwise, I've not seen any reaction. They just follow it like a tennis match, lawyer, witness, lawyer, witness, going back and forth. COOPER: Arthur, how would it ... ARTHUR AIDALA, NEW YORK CRIMINAL DEFENSE ATTORNEY: Well, just picking up on the jury, being in the courtroom for the first time, I always - one of the things I gauge on how serious a juror is taking this, probably most important thing they do civic duty-wise is how they dress. Do they come in like slobs, like they don't care or are they dressing like they're going somewhere that matters? I'm not saying you have to dress like you're going to a wedding, but, and they look like a professional jury, and yes, what Kara said was, like, they're just Susan Stormy, Susan, Stormy. They were going back and forth. Let me just put my cards on the table. I went there for one reason today. I went there as a student. Susan Necheles has a reputation in the legal community of being a spectacular lawyer, and I went there to learn from her, and I did. And what I learned was it just solidified what I knew. There is no substitute for preparation. So all of Stormy's quick answers back, Susan had a retort right back at you. Oh, really? Well, let's go - let's talk about what you said to Anderson Cooper. Oh, really? Let's look - let's talk about what you wrote in your own book. So she had it off the top of her head, and then she's able - there's so much technology, then she's able to call up on the big screens exactly what the - she wanted to see, the whole thing with the saint candle, the saint of indictments. And she called up a picture, and she made it very clear that this was, number one, about money. You wanted to make money and I - and she said, I didn't get paid for the Anderson Cooper interview. And then Susan calmly says, but how much money did you make after the Anderson Cooper interview? You made $800,000 on a book advance. You made $200,000 on a television show. You got the $130,000, so you made millions. No, I didn't make millions. That's only a million. A little bit more than a million, so I didn't make millions. So it was obvious the whole thing about money was off base. But overall, Anderson, she kind of held her own, I mean, pardon the pun, but she weathered the storm. Susan Necheles brought a storm, and I'd even say, like, her body language, like, towards the end, she was kind of firm. I thought, Kara, her jokes kind of felt flat, she tried to make, like, three or four jokes, no one really laughed. The biggest part that I was like, uh-huh, was Susan said - Susan Necheles, the defense attorney said, so you've written the scripts for - is it 150 pornography movies? And she gets all proud, Stormy, she's like, yes. And I think she said, I directed in them and she's like, so, you know how to write imaginary sexual encounters, don't you, and isn't that what happened here? No, this was real, and if I was writing about it, I would have written a better story than this one. But it just goes to her credibility, but overall, like, we've been saying, she's not a material witness, she doesn't - at the end Susan says, do you know something, like, do you know how he keeps his checks, do you know how he keeps his checkbooks, do you know how the books and records are kept? No, no, no, no, no. COOPER: Jeff, what ... KAITLAN COLLINS, CNN HOST: But it's ... COOPER: Go ahead. COLLINS: Well, I just want to say, because it's interesting that you say you're going to see Susan, she has this reputation as this tough defense attorney, she certainly was tough in the cross-examination of Stormy Daniels on Tuesday, it's interesting how they ended today, though, because the judge took a serious amount of time as Kara was noting there, when he was denying their motion for a mistrial, to really focus on Susan Necheles particularly. He said her name multiple times and Trump was kind of seated back in his chair like this with this kind of scowl on his face, listening to the judge really condemn Trump's team for how they carried that out. Susan Necheles was the first attorney in that chair, Stormy Daniels was initially on the witness stand, and when they were getting into those graphic details, which the prosecutors made clear today, they held back on a lot of what was in their initial interview with Stormy Daniels, that's why they in part denied this motion for a mistrial of the judge. But the judge's decision here was so thoughtful, that he said yesterday, and there was no court, he went into his chambers, and he reviewed the testimony from Tuesday, he went over it. And he looked at the past evidence of her interviews, and what she had said previously. He said, her account's not all that different, she didn't come in here and say things that are all that different. And he said what Kara was noting, which is essentially that you guys made this a decision for the jury because you came out in your opening statement and questioned her credibility. [20:10:05] So the prosecution had to restore credibility. JEFFREY TOOBIN, CNN CHIEF LEGAL ANALYST: That's a very important point about her consistency. COOPER: And - well, let me just read what the judge said. He said about Stormy Daniels' version of events, "I disagree with your narrative that there's any new account here. I disagree that there's any change in story. What's happened is people have gone into more detail than they originally planned. TOOBIN: Right. And I thought the big difference between yesterday's cross-examination and today was that yesterday, Susan Necheles very much focused on Stormy's hatred of Trump and her financial motives. Today she went into a new area, which was trying to prove that the description of the sexual encounter was different and, and that, I think, was a mistake. I think that's a waste of time, it allowed Stormy to talk about it again. I think the judge is right. I don't think there were any major inconsistencies, and that struck me as an example of client maintenance. That this was because Trump wanted to dispute - whether the sex took place, even though, in my opinion, maybe you disagree, maybe you all disagree, that's just not a worthwhile area to pursue. AIDALA: And, Jeff, I think you may be right about client maintenance. But one of the things, Anderson, that also stood out, which is a total silly answer from Stormy, Susan says, you testified here today that you guys never ate anything. You ordered dinner, but the dinner never came up. That's true. Let me read from, I believe it was your book, where you said, we came up and we had dinner together. So in your own book, you're saying you had dinner, and now you're saying you never ate. And Stormy goes, well, where I come from, saying you had dinner with someone doesn't have anything to do with food, it just means the time of day you spent with each other. COOPER: She called it dinner time ... AIDALA: Yes. COOPER: ... as opposed to actually having dinner. AIDALA: Look, it's a little thing ... TOOBIN: That's a great example of who cares. AIDALA: Right, I know but ... ABBY PHILLIP, CNN ANCHOR, "NEWSNIGHT WITH ABBY PHILLIP": Exactly, I mean, there were a couple of ... AIDALA: But when you're a defense attorney, you've got to hit every little detail. PHILLIP: But there were a couple of exchanges like that, that did kind of elicit, well, why are we even talking about this? I mean, I think generally when ... COOPER: We heard a lot of the "Make America Horny" tour (INAUDIBLE) ... AIDALA: Yes. PHILLIP: Right. I mean ... JILL KONVISER, FORMER NY STATE SUPREME COURT JUSTICE: The discrepancies that everyone is talking about almost misses the point. Because if there are discrepancies between what the witness said in the past off the stand as opposed to what she said here, that is never grounds for a mistrial. That is grounds for cross-examination. That's the purpose of cross-examination. So to base an argument on a mistrial that somehow the story has changed, to me, makes absolutely no sense at all. And the idea ... TOOBIN: In fairness, I don't think that was the argument. I think the argument was we should have a mistrial because it was too inflammatory, too improper. I mean, it is - I think they are good enough lawyers to know that a cross-examination allegedly inconsistent stories isn't ... KONVISER: But the quote from Todd Blanche, at least what I read, was this is not the story she told us and we were not prepared for that. Something along those lines, which sounded extremely, as you said, something that a lawyer would never credit because that's the whole point of cross-examination. SCANNELL: And he keep bringing it back to this is a case about documents, why are we getting into such detail about sex? And the judge is saying, because you open saying that this never happened and that's why the prosecution has to put this on. KONVISER: That's extremely important, because if the point is it never happened, then Stormy Daniels is a liar. If the point is Stormy Daniels is a liar, the people then have a responsibility to pull out as much detail as possible so this - so the jury can decide to credit her. PHILLIP: And that's what the judge essentially said. I felt like his demeanor from Tuesday to today about the usefulness of Stormy's testimony and the detail really shifted. He seemed to really kind of settle into the idea that it was actually more necessary than not. I also don't think that any of the inconsistencies even speak to the most important part, which is if they want to claim the sex didn't happen, none of those details, whether it's the dinner or anything else ... KONVISER: Doesn't matter. PHILLIP: ... really go to that. So I'm not sure that they really scored any points on that front except to seem like perhaps they were nitpicking on small things that really had nothing to do with the main idea. COOPER: Did it seem in the courtroom, I mean, just reading it from outside, it seemed like they were kind of shaming Stormy Daniels in some of the cross-examination for what she does for a living. Did it feel like that in the courtroom? SCANNELL: You know what's funny is that I talked to her two colleagues who were in the courtroom with me, Lauren del Valle and Jeremy Herb, and none of us took it as slut shaming, which is what some people I think on the outside took it as. It seemed more that she was challenging her on why would any of this be surprising to you, you're a professional, and not that you have been with so many different people. And Stormy Daniels' reaction also did not seem defensive in that respect. She was correcting her on the difference in it, but not seeming defensive about being asked that question. AIDALA: It was about the fainting. I mean, that's where Susan, and I agree with you, but that's when Susan went after a little bit. [20:15:04] So she goes, how many movies have you been in, like 200, and you're absolutely naked, right, and you're having sex in front of all these people, right? But now you come out of the bathroom and there's a 60- year-old man in boxer shorts and a t-shirt, and for that reason you almost fainted? And Stormy say, well, I didn't faint, it was just a little ... TOOBIN: Isn't it obvious that there's a difference between acting in a movie and something in your personal life? AIDALA: It's not a regular movie, Jeff. We're not talking about Gunga Din here. TOOBIN: No, no, but I mean ... PHILLIP: I thought that actually ... TOOBIN: ... again, I don't know how a jury's going to react to that, but it doesn't seem to me implausible that she would have a different reaction. AIDALA: So the point was she blacks out? TOOBIN: Well, she didn't black out. AIDALA: Oh, she said she almost blacked out. PHILLIP: I mean, I do think it was not a great look for Susan Necheles to be schooled by Stormy about what pornography actually is, when Stormy had to say it's real. It's not something that she makes up in a screenplay. COOPER: By the way, as a film buff, I love a Gunga Din reference. I may be the only one in this panel who really has seen it multiple times. Judge Konviser, thank you very much. Appreciate it. Up next, details from the full trial transcript, which just came out. CNN's John Berman joins us for that. And later, what Trump biographer Maggie Haberman and New York Times' reporter Maggie Haberman made of her day in court. Her take on how the former president handled hearing more unflattering comments from Stormy Daniels and the fact they were listed by his defense team and how a jury consultant thinks all of this landed with jurors tonight. (COMMERCIAL BREAK) [20:20:16] COOPER: Stormy Daniels was cross-examined today on her account of her sexual encounter with then-citizen Trump, which he and his defense team deny. Before bringing in CNN's John Berman, we have details from the trial transcript. Here's what she told me when I spoke with her for CBS' "60 MINUTES." (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) STORMY DANIELS, FORMER PLAYBOY MODEL: 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 say no. I'm not a victim. I'm not ... COOPER: It was entirely consensual. DANIELS: Oh, yes. Yes. (END VIDEO CLIP) COOPER: And joining us is CNN Senior Legal Analyst Elie Honig and John Berman. John, you've been looking at the transcripts, a lot about the sparring with Stormy Daniels. JOHN BERMAN, CNN ANCHOR: Look, and Arthur talked about this specific moment where Susan Necheles is going after Stormy Daniels for being involved in the porn industry. And she says, Susan Necheles, "Do you have a lot of experience in making phony stories about sex appear to be real, right" Daniel says, "Wow, I'm a," and there's laughter, she says, "that's not how I would put it. The sex in the films, it's very much real. Just like what happened to me in the room." Then Necheles says, "All right, but you're making fictionalized stories about sex; you write those stories." Daniel says, "No. The sex is real. The character names might be different, but the sex is very real." Then a little bit later, Necheles asked, "And you bragged about how good you are writing porn movies, and writing really good stories and writing really good dialogue, right?" Daniel says, "Yes." Necheles then says, "And now you have a story you have been telling about having sex with President Trump, right?" Then Daniel says, "And if that story was untrue, I would have written it to be a lot better." And then the transcript notes laughter in the room. COOPER: Elie, how do you think the defense did? ELIE HONIG, CNN SENIOR LEGAL ANALYST: I thought that piece of cross- examination backfired on the defense in a big way. I thought that was a mistake. I don't think it resonated with the jury. I think the cross-examination that Donald Trump's lawyers did the first day, back on Tuesday, was extremely effective. They undermined her in clear, crisp ways. Today, I thought was meandering, and I thought it was off the mark. There is a way that you can cross-examine Stormy Daniels very effectively in 45 seconds. COOPER: But do you think this - the reason they didn't do that is because this was a lot about what Donald Trump wanted to hear? HONIG: That was our reporting yesterday and it seems to have played out that way in the court today. It's not optimal strategy. The points you hit are this: You hate Donald Trump, right? Yes. You want him to go to prison, right? Yes. You have posted Twitter fantasies about how glorious it will be when he goes to prison, right? Yes. You've made a million dollars from selling your story to various outlets. Yes, I have. And you signed a written statement denying that you ever had sex with him in 2018. That's it. That's the heart of the cross-examination. All this stuff trying to attack her for being a porn star to me is way off the mark, and I think it undermined the effectiveness of what they were trying to do. AIDALA: Well, in the courtroom ... HONIG: Yes. AIDALA: ... that part that we just talked about, like, I forget who was like the two or three people on my row. Someone was like, fantastic, because it was ... HONIG: Meaning the questioning, not the answers? AIDALA: No, the answer too. Like, look, you know witnesses know how to get out of an answer. But it's like you've written these. I mean, how many witnesses get - that you get to cross-examine, write fiction for a living? HONIG: Oh, I agree. AIDALA: So you get to be like, this is what you do. You make up stories all the time. You make money by making up stories, don't you? Of course, she's going to give you a snide answer back. But it was - that moment was like, pretty cool. HONIG: Okay. Yes, I mean, I'm not sure whether they're reacting to the questions or the answers and it's all in the eyes of the beholder. AIDALA: The questions matter, you know that. COLLINS: You know what? What the judge said at the end that - he made a strong point and he said, everything you're complaining about that you're saying should be a mistrial because it's not relevant. One, you didn't object to when she was asking about whether or not he used a condom. But that part, he said, I don't understand for the life of me why you went so long on that on the cross-examination, because you're just drilling it into the jury's ears. TOOBIN: Exactly. AIDALA: Well, it's like ... COLLINS: You're just reminding them of everything that - you are upset that they heard on Tuesday. AIDALA: But sometimes the toothpaste comes out of the tube, right? And you can't get it back in. So instead of it being that pure white, clean crest, you try to dirty it up a little. Like you don't know, Kaitlan, and you don't - like you - it's like a hot potato and you don't know how to handle it. [20:25:06] COLLINS: But the judge - one thing that he said when he - did go into his chambers yesterday and he reviewed the transcript, he looked at that part in particular that they cited as a reason why there should be a mistrial. And he said there was no objection here. You didn't objected in real time. AIDALA: That's a mistake. I mean, look, I - obviously, that's a mistake. I was unpleasantly surprised at the lack of objections. I think at one point Susan said she thought there was a misinterpretation of the judge's ruling. And he - she thought he allowed certain - these things come in a pre-trial room ruling. BERMAN: Let me read you what Judge Merchan said specifically about that. He said, "For some unexplained reason which I still don't understand, there was no objection to certain testimony, which was later used in the motion for a mistrial on Tuesday and again used today. For example, the mention of a condom. I agree that shouldn't have come out. I wish those questions hadn't been asked, and I wish those answers hadn't been given. But for the life of me, I don't know why Ms. Necheles didn't object. She had just made about 10 objections, most of which were sustained. Why on earth won't she object to the mention of a condom? I don't understand." HONIG: Let me defend Susan Necheles here. I think that's actually unfair by the judge. One, if the judge thought it was wildly inappropriate, the judge can stop it. Judges all the time will stop a witness, even with no objection from either party. They'll say, no, hold on, stop. Objection sustained. Sometimes we'll do that on their own. Number two, tactically, as a defense lawyer, you do not want to be - or prosecutor - you do not want to be popping up 10 questions in a row, 15 questions in a row, because it looks terrible in front of the jury. They think that you hate what's happening. You do have to keep something of a poker face. You have to play it cool. They did object several times, as the judge notes right there. I don't think it's the job of either party to say every single question, objection, you're going to look obstructionist. It's going to look bad in front of the jury. I don't think that's a fair take by the judge. COOPER: She - I mean, I'm very curious to know what would be in the mind of Donald Trump listening to the judge admonish this attorney who he himself was sort of, you know, not, I mean, I don't know what, touching to tell her to object more on Tuesday. COLLINS: Tapping her a lot. COOPER: Exactly. COLLINS: I mean, I was watching him particularly as the judge was reading - was saying everything there and he was sitting back like this. I - he just was making this motion with his hand. But he had this scowl on his face as he was listening, like he knew the judge was not going to grant their motion for a mistrial. And he just thinks this judge, even though from everything that I've witnessed and everyone who's been in the court, the judge has been quite fair. He's gone out of his way to not try to call Trump out in front of the jury when they're in there. And - but they just don't think - he personally goes out and calls this judge corrupt 10 times in the hallway. AIDALA: Oh, my god. COLLINS: And then goes in there and the judge is like doing his best to try to be fair. TOOBIN: And by the way, I'm sorry ... AIDALA: No, go. TOOBIN: ... just especially the - this incredible denunciation of the judge over and over again from someone who claims that his First Amendment rights have been taken away, didn't sound like his First Amendment rights had been taken away to me. I mean, he is so free to talk about anything under the sun except the witnesses and the jury. That's really not much of a restriction. And the idea that he's claiming this enormous victimhood while talking in the most scathing terms about this trial itself is particularly outrageous. AIDALA: I mean, look, what he's saying about the judge and you're his lawyer, it's - I mean, it's embarrassing. I mean, I will have no problem telling you if that was me, I would add a sidebar and I'd be like, Your Honor, you know I have nothing to do with what my client is saying out in the hallway and I don't feel that way. That's how I would handle myself. The other thing I found odd that must really do psychological damage to Trump, not all judges, Anderson, when you - when they come into a courtroom, make you stand. There are a lot of judges in the state court that just say, remain seated, remain seated because for whatever reason, it's a preference, it's whatever you prefer. But Judge Merchan has everyone rise and I don't know the last time Donald Trump had to rise when somebody else walked into the room. COOPER: He also calls him Mr. Trump, which is correct ... AIDALA: That's second. COOPER: ... and second reference to a president, you can call him Mr. Trump. PHILLIP: But his attorneys call him President Trump and everybody around him calls him President Trump. COOPER: Yes, (INAUDIBLE) ... PHILLIP: That's the way he wants it. AIDALA: IT'S interesting, by the way, the judge doesn't have to allow that. The judge can say, no. In this trial, you're going to refer to him as Mr. Trump. So he's allowing that. And so Kaitlan's point about him being fair, he's allowing him to be called President Trump. COOPER: John Berman, thanks very much. Coming up more on the mistrial motion that we've been talking about, the contentious moment between the judge and the defense over it and Maggie Haberman's take on what she calls a test of wills. She was in court and joins us next. (COMMERCIAL BREAK) [20:33:38] COOPER: We want to talk more about how the trial ended today, that combative moment between the judge and the defendants over its second attempted mistrial. Our next guest witnessed it all joining us, New York Times senior political correspondent, Trump biographer, Maggie Haberman, who has been inside the courtroom for the trial. So you wrote about that contentious hearing of the gag order the mistrial, you said this is actually the kind of moment Merchan has largely tried to avoid in this trial, at test of wills with the defense. He made it clear how angry he was with the arguments and that he thought Trump's team was making them in bad faith. Can you just -- from your perspective, walk us through how that unfolded? MAGGIE HABERMAN, CNN POLITICAL ANALYST: Sure. So a couple of things that have struck me throughout this trial because I attended several days of the E. Jean Carroll trial, and the situation there was very different between Trump and the judge, Judge Kaplan in that case, that was a real battle of wills. And in the Engoron case, the New York civil fraud case, it was something of a circus in that trial, and Trump and the judge were going back and forth too. Merchan, while the Trump team really doesn't like him. He has tried being really fair on a bunch of points, including in a sidebar earlier this week saying to Blanche when Trump was cursing twice audibly. I'm not doing this out loud. I don't want to embarrass your client. You got to get him under control. This was the moment I thought when Merchan had finally just had enough and was making very clear that he didn't think the arguments that Blanche was putting forward, Todd Blanche, the main lawyer here, were in good faith. He really lit into Susan Necheles who had done the cross examination of Stormy Daniels and said, you know, she had every opportunity to object to XYZ and didn't. They argue that there were reasons she didn't that there was a misunderstanding over the judge's instructions about what can be testified to. [20:35:09] But he went on at length. And he said something to the effect of, you know, no, I'm not going to adjust the gag. Because you can't tell me in good faith that your client is just going to answer rationally and not just attack these witnesses. And it sort of summed up the argument against a lot of what Trump has been saying, and what the defense has been doing. Merchan said, you know, your opener was there was no sexual encounter, that then opens the door for all the other questions. And it's sort of hard to argue against that. Now, I assume they will use all of this if there's a conviction on appeal, and they might have some success of the Court of Appeals. But that's so ways away. And I think this just sets a tone for what we're going to see in jury instructions going forward. COOPER: Do you have any sense of how Trump now, I mean, who he's angry or at the judge or his own attorneys, I mean, listening to your attorney has being, you know. HABERMAN: Yes. I think there's enough to go around. I don't think he's -- I don't think -- I think he's pretty equal opportunity on that. I mean, you know, he has been -- he was very happy with how Susan Necheles did on Tuesday, in the cross examination of Stormy Daniels because she was very aggressive or Susan Necheles was very aggressive. Although Stormy Daniels, while she did get tripped up on certain more minor details. She did also have a pretty defiant posture that was consistent in defense of herself. And they were very happy because Stormy Daniels had a bit of a rough outing with prosecutors earlier that morning, but a lot of that went away today. COOPER: And in terms of the job today that the defense did, I mean how did it play in the court in your perspective? HABERMAN: It was rough. I mean, you know, there was -- these were pretty minor semantic details that Susan Necheles was pushing Stormy Daniels on over, did you actually eat dinner? Or was it just dinner where food was not consumed? And that point was made over and over and over again to essentially try to trip Stormy Daniels up and suggest her story had changed. And that was something that Merchan said after court, her story really hasn't changed. But the jury sees this and it ends up risking looking like you're just badgering this woman who is not the defendant in this case. You know, Susan Necheles has a very strong reputation as a trial defense lawyer. She is much more experienced than the men on that table -- at that table. But I -- it's hard to separate when someone is working for Donald Trump. What's their own nature? This is what he wants. COOPER: -- on the reporting because there was a lot of talk today that this was performative, perhaps for Donald Trump and his sense, or at least at the behest of Donald Trump. HABERMAN: I mean, some of it certainly felt like something he would like whether, I mean, you know, she is -- Susan Necheles is known as a very tough, aggressive lawyer in the courtroom. But continuing to go at Stormy Daniels in this very contentious back and forth, felt in the courtroom, like a losing prospect after the first several times. JEFFREY TOOBIN, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: Isn't it also possible that the mistrial motions themselves are about pleasing Donald Trump? Those lawyers are smart enough to know, they're not going to win those mistrial motions. But they seem to be doing making these motions, because they get to denounce the proceedings, just like the way their client is doing in the press conferences afterwards. And, you know, I don't know what good that does them, especially when the judge, you know, just slams the door at, you know, at the motion the way he did today. HABERMAN: Well, I would just go back to make a point to that end. I mean, yes, yes. I think the mistrials were their MO in the previous trial. So I don't think this is some new thing that we're seeing, number one. But number two, the point Merchan made about how their opening argument or their opening statement was not to say the false business records are not real. It was to say sex never happened. And that was their main focus. That's certainly pleasing the client. ABBY PHILLIP, CNN ANCHOR, NEWSNIGHT WITH ABBY PHILLIP: I mean, it just -- the whole Stormy Daniels thing. I mean, it may have been a little bit of a trap for the prosecution to spend as much time as they did with her on Tuesday. But then the defense really fell into that trap wholeheartedly by arguing over that point, like it is completely irrelevant whether the sex happened or not. The idea that they would spend all of this time on that today just I don't understand it because it has taken us so far afield from what the jury is actually going to end up having to deliberate over as to whether or not Donald Trump was involved in falsifying those business records. It has sucked up so much oxygen this week in the trial. AIDALA: It goes to the whole picture in summation. You can't believe this one or look at all the lies this one told Peterson told, Pecker told, this one told, that one told. You got a pile on. Look, Anderson -- COOPER: Or the flipside of that is for the prosecution, this guy is lying about the sex, what he's lying about, I mean if he's going to lie to you about having sex. AIDALA: So he's not testifying. They can't say that. They can't say that unless Donald Trump takes the stand. They can't say he's lying because he never took the stand. So they can say they want you to believe this, they can't say he's lying to you about this. But just in terms of how it works with the client and the defense attorney, if a defense attorney is not getting scolded a little bit by the judge here and there, you're not pushing the envelope enough. You got to push until you get right there. You don't want to jump over the line. They didn't jump over the line by asking for additional mistrial. [20:40:22] PHILLIP: But they're getting scolded for not going far. AIDALA: Excuse me? PHILLIP: They're getting scolded for not going far enough. AIDALA: By Trump. PHILLIP: By the judge. The judge is the one saying you guys should have objected and you did not object. AIDALA: Right. Well, that's true. No, but I'm talking about the mistrial. And this is no like unique. Like any lawyer, he can tell you, it's not a unique strategy to ask for a mistrial as much as you possibly can. I want to do one a day. TOOBIN: You -- I think you said earlier, you do it every day. Right. Yes. And that's what they're doing. AIDALA: Yes. And the judge got annoyed. Sorry, Judge, I'm doing my thing. But go enjoy a cup of coffee. We'll see you later. We'll be back tomorrow. There's like not a big deal. ELIE HONIG, CNN SENIOR LEGAL ANALYST: They're harmless, often their methods of client management for defense lawyers. What I'm struck by is just how much of this trial is in the eye of the beholder. I mean, even here with two smart people who were in the courtroom. Arthur said that the cross examination today was searing and a huge win for Trump's team, you seem to have seen it differently Maggie. And this is, by the way, why we all ought to wait. I mean, we don't -- you never know what a jury is going to do. No, I agree. But and it's such an interesting example. I mean, both, either of you could have been on that jury. And you see things -- HABERMAN: No. I definitely could not have been. HONIG: I think Trump would have struck you. That's probably right. But it's just so interesting to see the opposite meets. COOPER: -- just having been in that court, you know, one once last week, how different it is, when you're actually there. And when you're just reading the messages on the outside, like we're doing. And we're doing the best we can to bring viewers into that courtroom. But without cameras or without actually sitting there it is, you just -- HABERMAN: You don't know. COOPER: Yeah. HABERMAN: And I was -- COOPER: And it's such a human experience. It is human beings and sweat and just, you know, smells and the whole thing. HABERMAN: And well, he's also been, I mean, Trump is not exactly known for not telegraphing his stress. And so, you know, we have been able to see that, to the extent we can see his face, which depends on how close you are to the screen and whether you're allowed to use binoculars on a given day. But there are days like this week when he has appeared visibly much more upset than at other times. And so you don't really see that. And it's also just hard to understand if you don't sit through, I mean honestly, if you don't sit through the whole trial, you don't really even have the same sense of it. You know, I have been talking to some colleagues who have been there episodically. And you just have a different sense of it if you have not heard all of the testimony, because it does all go to one story. TOOBIN: And it seems to me even more than most trials. This one calls for humility on our part in terms of how the jury is reacting to things. HABERMAN: Hundred percent, 100 percent. TOOBIN: Because you're talking about what jurors think about sex, what they think about marital infidelity, what they think about porn, I mean, all of which, you know, I don't know what they think. And, you know, what are they offended by? Are they offended by the underlying conduct? Are they offended by how the questioning is going? I don't know. And I think it's very important to say we don't know how they're thinking. HABERMAN: And there's two layers on the jury, which is the other thing to remember. And we don't know how -- which, you know, both sides, the prosecutors and the defense both feel really good about for different reasons, and one of them will be right and we don't know which one. COOPER: All right, everyone, thanks very much. Everyone stay with us. Next more on the final day of testimony from Stormy Daniels and when a jury consultant makes the impact, that's ahead. (COMMERCIAL BREAK) [20:47:32] COOPER: We're talking about how difficult it is to know what a jury is thinking. There was certainly a lot for the jury to take in the Trump trial today on this final day of testimony from Stormy Daniels. That -- we're talking about that moment when the attorney, Susan Necheles, tried to use Daniels work as an adult film star against her. There's also what jurors heard when things seem to take a strange turn. Necheles asking Daniels quote, you have made a show and podcast claiming that you can speak to dead people right to which Daniels eventually replied, yes. She then asked, you also claimed that you lived in a house in New Orleans that was haunted to which Daniels answered, yes, so the house was has some very unexplained activity. And then went on to say, quote, a lot of the activity was completely debunked, as you know, a giant opossum that was under the tape -- under the house. Back with our panel, joining us now is jury consultant, Alan Tuerkheimer. You know, it's interesting because last time, Alan, we talked, you said that jurors don't like anyone wasting their time. And I'm wondering if what you made of kind of the rabbit hole, the defense tried to take Stormy Daniels down today. ALAN TUERKHEIMER, JURY CONSULTANT: I can't pinpoint exactly when it happened. But I'm confident that at some point, Stormy Daniels fatigue set in on the part of this jury. She made her points. You talked about the encounter, and then how Team Trump didn't want to getting out. So I don't think impressions change that much today, or how the jurors see her role in all of this. Now, with the subsequent witnesses, it was very interesting, because jurors were able to focus less on the seductive elements of the case and more on the important parts of the prosecution's case. They were able to see how unsigned checks went from New York to D.C., back to New York, with Trump's signature on them. It's very interesting, I think at this point, even though they're going to pay attention to the evidence and listen to the witnesses, jurors use their own common sense and their recollections of the Trump presidency. And we saw some of that today when it was brought out that well, Trump spent a lot of time tweeting, we know that Trump spend time golfing. It's not a shot at him, presidents like to golf. He spend time calling and watching news and calling into the shows. So I think the jurors are thinking, yes, you know what, he probably knew what he was signing when he signed the checks. And what's interesting is also that jurors tend to hold people at the top accountable. And the excuse, well, I delegated. Well, I didn't know about it. It seemed as a responsibility dodged by a lot of jurors. So I think at this point, they're favoring the prosecution. They're doing well. There's a lot to be left, but most jurors are probably aligned with the prosecution. COOPER: When you interview jurors in the case afterward and so you learn, you know, what registered with them, I mean, does it boiled down to who they trust and who they don't, like, I believe that, you know, in general I believe this person I may not have liked them but I believe them. I don't believe this person. Is that how or is it, I mean, there's two lawyers on this jury. I don't know if that would change that dynamic. But I mean, is that sort of how decisions are made of sometimes? [20:50:19] TUERKHEIMER: Witness credibility is huge. And when I do talk to jurors, they usually reference one, maybe two witnesses, and then within those witnesses who they say are quite credible, believable, likable, they'll focus on a portion of the testimony that really did it for them. Sometimes it's known as aha moment where they think, yes, you know what, I was listening to everything. And then this witness said this, and then I kind of thought, well, I know what's going on with the case. TOOBIN: Can I ask a question about sort of the buck stops here, you said, you know, they don't like jurors don't like when a big shot tries to blame, you know, the, you know, lesser status people. But the issue in this case is, did the corporate records that were signed -- that were prepared by lower, you know, people in the pecking order, did Trump know about that? What do you think a juror is going to think? It might a juror just think, you know, he was a billionaire, what did he know about how a bookkeeper prepared her records? Is that a good argument? TUERKHEIMER: It's certainly the hope of the defense, but I just think it falls flat. And again, you just need one juror to think that what you're talking about. But most jurors, especially with when they learned about how Trump was so involved in the finances and interested in how things worked, and he didn't just give up everything about his business when he became elected president. So I think it's a tough sell. But certainly, if there's a juror too on there, maybe one of the lawyers on there, that'll help the -- AIDALA: One of the things that's come out in how the Trump operation worked, how to deal with that drop down menu, where when they had -- when they had to do bookkeeping, there were only certain places that categories that you could check off. And I got to tell you, I don't think the sitting President of the United States is really, I understand, look, people, in my opinion have proven beyond a reasonable doubt. He signed those checks. And he knew what they were for. Meaning they had to do with this Stormy Daniels non-disclosure agreement. I think that's done. That's not the crime. The crime is the next piece of the puzzle. Does Donald Trump in Washington, D.C., in the White House, golfing, doing whatever he's doing. Does he know what's going on at the Trump Corporation, where in the log books or where in that click down menu it's being logged? That's -- that hasn't been proven at all yet. TUERKHEIMER: Right. I think jurors make inferences to something like this. And I think they probably are. And some of them are thinking, yeah, he knew about it. And we haven't heard from the defense witnesses, they're going to be open to hearing what the defense narrative is to counteract that. But I just think jurors, what they bring with them their common sense, and once they start to arrive at how they think the case should turn out, then they need something that's pretty stark to contradict that to disabuse them at least. COOPER: The difficulty is the person who Trump would have had that conversation with was Allen Weisselberg. Allen Weisselberg is not talking. TOOBIN: And that's a tremendous gift to the defense that he's off limits. But I guess I don't know which way common sense cuts in this. Did Donald Trump know that this whole thing was designed to hide the fact that this was a pay off? Or does Donald Trump just not know or care how doc -- how checks are characterized on some ancient piece of software? KAITLAN COLLINS, CNN ANCHOR, THE SOURCE: But the other question is, why is Keith Schiller not a witness? Keith Schiller's name has been mentioned as much as anyone's. He was Trump's longtime bodyguard. He was the one who was their president in 2006 when and he was one who felt the Stormy Daniels says, facilitated their dinner. But also Madeleine Westerhout, the White House aide who was basically Trump's gatekeeper at the White House who testified late this afternoon also said that the checks were sent to two people, Johnny McEntee and Keith Schiller, they were the ones who sat right outside the Oval Office with her and that he was basically the one who had helped make sure the checks got mailed back and were sent when she was the one in charge of where they're being sent. His name has not come up. He's not a witness in this case, based on what we know so far. TOOBIN: I wonder the same thing. But can I ask you a question about Keith Schiller, he was part of the Trump administration, but left early. He was not there to the end, or was he? COOPER: No, no. He wasn't. COLLINS: No. Keith Schiller was not there until the end and he left and the -- he was still getting paid by the Trump Organization when Trump left. It wasn't clear what he was actually doing for them, but it was kind of it was a setup, it seemed that he could still be taken care of still get paid to all the job. But no one has heard from him since then. PHILLIP: I mean, I feel like if there's any witness that's going to be a hostile witness for the prosecution, it would be Keith Schiller. He would not, you know, take kindly to being asked to, you know, say negative things about his longtime boss, someone who basically Trump made I mean, Keith -- Trump took Keith Schiller from nowhere and basically put him in the White House. So I think their relationship would be I mean, I don't know Elie if that would factor in for the prosecution by a witness like Madeleine Westerhout who still likes Trump but is not hostile is the best you can get. She's not going to be hostile to you as the prosecutor but she's not throwing her boss under the bus, Keith Schiller I think would be a hostile on this. [20:55:14] HONIG: I'm sure that's exactly the calculation. You cannot take a risk of putting someone on the stand who you think is a dyed in the wool loyalist of the defendant. And I don't think Madeleine Westerhout was at that level. One other important point, Kaitlan asked, you know, the jury is going to be wondering, Where's Keith Schiller? All of these questions. Where's Keith Schiller? Where's Keith -- Karen McDougal? Those are bad for the prosecution, because the prosecution is the one that has the burden of proving their case beyond a reasonable doubt, very common defense tactics. Stand up in closing you go, where is Keith Schiller folks? Don't you think you should have heard from him? They didn't call him. I'm not saying it's fatal here. I don't think there's anyone who's so obviously missing, it's going to cost them the case. But all those missing witnesses are not great for prosecution. COOPER: Alan Tuerkheimer, thank you so much. It's great to have you. TUERKHEIMER: Thank you. COOPER: And the rest are back with us in a moment as we dive into more testimony from the trial today. Plus what Michael Cohen is now saying about his expected testimony, ahead. (COMMERCIAL BREAK) The Source with Kaitlan Collins Aired May 09, 2024 - 21:00 ET THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED. [21:00:00] ANDERSON COOPER, CNN HOST: Just about 9 PM, here in New York, a fascinating day 14 of the Trump hush money criminal trial, now in the books. Stormy Daniels wrapped up two days on the stand, managing to turn a portion of defense cross-examination, aimed at undermining her credibility, into some embarrassing moments for the former President. At one point, saying that if she were making up her story, about sex with Donald Trump, quote, "I would have written it to be a lot better." Today also saw testimony, from a Trump Organization bookkeeper, about how closely he monitors the checks he writes, detailing the attention he paid to amounts considerably smaller than the $35,000 checks he wrote to Michael Cohen. The day ended with Judge Juan Merchan rejecting another Trump motion for a mistrial, and denying his request, to modify the gag order he's under, so he can talk about Stormy Daniels. And capping it all off, Stormy Daniels tweeted this evening, saying this about the former President, quote, "Real men respond to testimony by being sworn in and taking the stand in court. Oh...wait. Nevermind." Back with the panel. Joining us, conservative lawyer, George Conway, who was in court today. What were your takeaways? GEORGE CONWAY, CONTRIBUTOR, "THE ATLANTIC": My takeaway was that the continued cross-examination of Stormy Daniels was a complete disaster, and a fiasco for the defense. I mean, as Elie -- COOPER: Because it was a rabbit hole, they didn't need to go down? CONWAY: It just was just -- it just went on and on and didn't -- they didn't have anything on her. And you got to confine crosses to basically serve -- a few short lines of stuff that's good. They didn't do that. I think what happened was they had a day off. And Necheles is a very good lawyer by reputation. I can -- you can even tell just by the way, she conducted herself, she knows how to cross-examine a witness, and knows how to ask questions. But she was -- she's -- her client is a narcissistic, sociopath, and who is obsessed with proving the lie, that he didn't have anything to do with Stormy Daniels. And so, they went off on this whole tangent, on basically, it doesn't -- it does -- in a lot -- the defense's position should be it doesn't really matter whether that happened or not. Because even though it was extortion money, you know, even though it was extortion money, it still could be a crime. But when trying to prove something that happened, didn't happen, is just, it's just counterproductive. And it was -- it just got to the point of ridiculousness, where she's asking Stormy about basically a map of South Lake Tahoe, Nevada, to figure out whether or not she was walking in her heels, one block or two, and where she took a cab. It was just garbage. And it was embarrassing, and to the point where, if you control the wit -- that by keeping your cross simple and short, you can control the witness. But the longer you go, the more the witness can pop off at you. And this woman is way smarter than Necheles' client. And she got some really good -- I mean, I thought I saw jurors, at some point, trying to do what I was trying to do, which was suppress laughter, at some of the -- at some of the shots that Stormy got into -- got in into the record. It was just -- it was just a complete waste of time. The good news for the defense is that's not what this case is going to be about, in the -- at the end of the day. The pros -- I mean, the defense made the mistake also of putting this all into -- they could have just stipulated to that we're not going to contest what happened in South Lake Tahoe, and we're just going to focus the jury in on the fact of whether or not there is proof that Donald Trump knew about the records, that we claim or that the defense -- that the prosecution claims were falsified. Now, let's leave apart the fact that he signed some of this stuff with a backup next to it, and with -- and he carefully read it, it was $35,000 to his lawyer, who hadn't really done that much for him, let's leave that aside. That's what this issue that if he gets off, that's how he's going to get off. COOPER: Yes. CONWAY: By leaving this issue open about what happened in that hotel room, they invited the prosecution to dump all the stuff in the record. Then they failed to object to a lot -- some of the stuff that should have -- they should have objected to, like the bit about whether or not he wore a condom. I mean, the judge said today, he didn't think that should have gone in, but there was no objection. KAITLAN COLLINS, CNN HOST: Well to the -- think about the amount of money and what -- how closely he pays attention to that, it didn't get anywhere near as much attention as the Stormy Daniels cross- examination. But Madeleine Westerhout, who got on the stand, and was the last witness today, and she'll be back on the stand tomorrow morning. She was Trump's gatekeeper, inside the White House, and basically was the liaison, who was -- his executive assistants, at Trump Organization, Trump Tower, they trained her of how to basically do that out of the White House. And there was one moment that the prosecution clearly brought up, where there was an email between her and Rhona Graff, Trump's assistant, here in Trump Tower, about buying a frame -- a frame from Tiffany's, next door, because they didn't have any empty ones for a picture of Trump's mother that they wanted to put. And Rhona Graff responded in the email, and said OK, but the frames are about $650 with a 10 percent discount. Can you check with him if that's how much he wants to spend? [21:05:00] This is while Donald Trump is the President of the United States of America, and he was -- and Rhona, who knows him better than anyone, essentially, was still checking to see if that was too much money, for him to spend on a frame, and for her to expense it. And I think that is where we're going to see this go tomorrow that they're trying to get to the fact that he was a penny-pincher, and he paid attention to where every cent went. COOPER: I mean -- CONWAY: And paid this guy $35,000 a month, and he has a reputation, around this town, of stiffing law firms. Like you could -- you could -- you can make a long list on Elie's notepad there, all the law firms. COOPER: Even in the record -- I mean, the recording that Michael Cohen secretly taped of his client, Trump does sort of seem interested in the details of payments. I mean, he's talking about, you know? JEFFREY TOOBIN, FORMER FEDERAL PROSECUTOR: And -- COOPER: And in cash? TOOBIN: Yes. Can we do it in -- COOPER: Can we do it in cash? TOOBIN: Can we do it in cash? George, let me ask you this question. It seems to me that there is a lot of evidence that Trump in general was very scrupulous about how he was spending his money, and in general looked at documents, very carefully before he signed them. But there's not any evidence specifically that he looked at these documents. Do you think that's enough, for a conviction? CONWAY: No. Well and I mean, there is evidence. He signed those checks with the backup. ARTHUR AIDALA, NEW YORK CRIMINAL DEFENSE ATTORNEY: But that's not evidence. That's not -- that's not evidence. CONWAY: That is evidence. It's documentary -- AIDALA: No, no, no, no, no, no, no, no. That's -- George? George? CONWAY: It's documentary evidence. AIDALA: George, look. CONWAY: That is evidence. AIDALA: It's clear how you feel about President Trump, OK? I don't have a feeling one way or the other. CONWAY: Sure. AIDALA: I'm looking at this as a trial attorney. CONWAY: OK. AIDALA: And I'm looking it as objectively as I can, as a former prosecutor -- CONWAY: Yes. AIDALA: -- and as a current criminal defense attorney. What -- there's a big difference. Yes, there's evidence that Donald Trump signed the checks. I've said that. CONWAY: Yes. AIDALA: That's not the crime. And there's -- Kaitlan, your point about -- CONWAY: Two of the counts -- COLLINS: Don't bring me into this. AIDALA: Hold on. No, no, your point -- CONWAY: Two of the counts. AIDALA: Your point about the frame, it's clear that he watches his money. But that's not the crime. It's that second leap of how does it then get written down, back in New York City. Where is it listed? How is it listed? Is it listed as reimbursements to Michael Cohen? Or is it legal fee to Michael Cohen? There's been no proof whatsoever that Donald Trump had anything to do with how it's listed on the ledger in Trump Tower. ELIE HONIG, CNN SENIOR LEGAL ANALYST: Can I try to -- AIDALA: Am I correct? HONIG: Can I try to frame this for a second? And I'll pose a question to you, George. If the prosecution stands up tomorrow, and says, Your Honor, at this point, we rest. Can they possibly win? CONWAY: Yes, they could. HONIG: They would have to dismiss the case, right? CONWAY: Not necessarily. I mean, I think there's enough circumstantial evidence that they could infer it. But they need to put some more on it. HONIG: Right. And so -- AIDALA: Well the judge would order a trial order dismissal. HONIG: So, so, hey -- AIDALA: You know that. HONIG: So, so that's -- CONWAY: No, he won't. HONIG: It would be. I agree with Arthur. I think if the prosecution rested tomorrow, it doesn't go to the jury. So, they need something from Michael Cohen, right? CONWAY: Yes, they're going to need him. HONIG: What do you think they need from Michael Cohen? CONWAY: Basically, he's going to explain -- HONIG: What's the missing link that he needs to get? CONWAY: The meeting in the Oval Office, in 2018, where they basically discussed -- HONIG: I agree. CONWAY: -- how to do this. And I think, you know, and I think they're going to do a cross on Michael, that is going to attempt to be brutal, the way they attempted to brutalize Stormy Daniels today. And a lot of people have low expectations for that. But the fact of the matter is, given everything that they have pointed to so far, from the commencement of the hush, of the catch-and-kill scheme, to the end, everything -- COOPER: Hey, your mic just fell off, so. CONWAY: My mic just fell. HONIG: OK. Here. COOPER: Yes. CONWAY: I'll hold it up. Basically what Michael has been -- is going to say, has basically been pre-corroborated. So, it's going to be that. But it is going to be the key moment. HONIG: I think that's exactly right. And that bridges the gap that I think we're seeing here, which is there has to be that last link. And Michael Cohen is going to say it's that meeting in the Oval Office, in 2017, we're going to hear about. They actually set the foundation for that today, because the woman who testified had an email showing that this meeting was happening, doesn't tell us what's -- what was said. But the jury knows that meeting happened. And Michael Cohen's testimony about that meeting is pivotal. TOOBIN: But -- COLLINS: Did he actually have -- (CROSSTALK) TOOBIN: I'm sorry. Go ahead. ABBY PHILLIP, CNN HOST: Can I ask a -- this is going to be a dumb question. But the fact that these payments were split up, over the course of a year, to me seems like one of the most fishy elements of this whole scheme. CONWAY: Oh, yes. PHILLIP: If he were just going to reimburse Michael Cohen, he could have just written a check -- CONWAY: Right, yes. PHILLIP: -- that money was there. But the fact that they split it up, it seems to strongly suggest they were trying to make it seem like something that it was not. A retainer that was being paid over the course of a long period of time, right? CONWAY: And to gross-up, like to gross-up. PHILLIP: Well yes, I mean, regardless of the -- CONWAY: I mean -- PHILLIP: -- regardless of the amount, the means -- CONWAY: Yes. PHILLIP: -- to me, I think, the prosecution hasn't explained this or touched on this. But that seems strongly suggestive of a scheme to make it seem like something that it was not. HONIG: And that's exactly the point. It's not enough, for the prosecution to show Donald Trump signed these checks. He knew they were intended to reimburse Michael Cohen, for the hush money payments. They have to show that this was part of an effort, to falsify, to falsely structure these, labels these, in the pull-down menu, as lawyer fees, attorney fees, in order to cover up the fact that they were really hush money payments. TOOBIN: But how does -- but how does Michael Cohen help on that question? [21:10:00] CONWAY: Well, look, at the end of the day, what's a reasonable doubt? A reasonable doubt has to be that there has to be some plausible alternative explanation for all these things that happened. And at the end of the day, it going to be -- I think it's going to be hard for the jury, to believe that Donald Trump didn't know, that these payments were for the -- AIDALA: George, at the end of the day? CONWAY: Yes. AIDALA: An experienced lawyer, of your magnitude, you know what you would say? If you were trying this case, you know what you would say to the jury? Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, you're one of the luckiest juries around, because you got to meet Mr. Reasonable Doubt. You saw him walk in here. You saw him take the stand. If there's any human being on the planet Earth, that should be -- his picture should be next to the definition, reasonable doubt, it's Michael Cohen. COLLINS: But -- CONWAY: Ah, no, no. See -- AIDALA: And if you have reasonable Cohen -- CONWAY: You could cross-examine Michael Cohen. PHILLIP: But why -- but why is that? AIDALA: Why? His history of being a liar -- CONWAY: You're not going to be -- AIDALA: -- being a fraud. He just got in trouble -- CONWAY: As opposed to the defendant's? AIDALA: He just -- the defendant -- the defendant's credibility, if unless he takes the stand is not on trial. CONWAY: It is because -- because -- AIDALA: It is not. CONWAY: Because he's been saying -- AIDALA: You know. CONWAY: -- all sorts of stuff. AIDALA: No, no, no. The defendant -- CONWAY: They've been showing him lying, and lying, and lying -- AIDALA: The defendant may not even -- CONWAY: -- and lying, and lying. AIDALA: No, no he's not -- CONWAY: It is. But listen -- AIDALA: No, no, no, no. CONWAY: But -- but -- AIDALA: It is all about Michael Cohen just -- Abby, you asked me a question, why? Within two months ago, he got in trouble, Michael Cohen, for submitting fake cases -- COLLINS: Arthur -- AIDALA: -- to a judge when he has his probation. CONWAY: And -- COLLINS: Hold on. AIDALA: He lied to a federal judge -- CONWAY: Show us -- AIDALA: -- two months ago. COLLINS: Can I ask you -- CONWAY: Show us something that he lied about, that has something to do with what he's saying on the stand. AIDALA: It all goes to credibility. CONWAY: Oh. AIDALA: They're going to destroy his credibility. CONWAY: They're not going to destroy his credibility. COOPER: Kaitlan -- CONWAY: Everybody's -- AIDALA: He's in Otisville. CONWAY: -- in disguise (ph). AIDALA: The guy spent Christmas in Otisville. Everyone should know that's a prison. COLLINS: I really hate to -- CONWAY: They let him -- fine. COLLINS: -- interrupt this really intellectual debate that we're having. But can I ask you a question about the Michael Cohen thing, because we have heard everything about his credibility. We will when he takes the stand, which we expect next week. Madeleine Westerhout is there to testify today and tomorrow, about a meeting, where there's an email. She's asking for Michael Cohen to send his Social Security numbers, date of birth, everything you need to get into the White House. There's the date of when that meeting is. We actually have this sound bite of Michael Cohen, when he's testifying, before the House Oversight Committee, in 2018, about that meeting, at the White House, and essentially what happened. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) MICHAEL COHEN, FORMER TRUMP ATTORNEY AND FIXER: So picture this scene. In February of 2017, one month into his presidency, I'm visiting President Trump in the Oval Office for the first time. And it's truly awe-inspiring. He's showing me all around, and pointing to different paintings. And he says to me something to the effect of, don't worry, Michael, your January and February reimbursement checks are coming. They were FedExed from New York. And it takes a while for that to get through the White House system. As he promised, I received the first check for the reimbursement of $70,000, not long thereafter. (END VIDEO CLIP) COLLINS: OK. So, we know that the meeting's set up. We have someone who's testifying about the FedEx and how that worked. And you have Michael Cohen testifying that. So it's not like it's just his word alone. AIDALA: But it's -- COLLINS: There is other extenuating -- AIDALA: But Kaitlan, all he just proved is that he got checks from Michael -- CONWAY: OK. I mean -- (CROSSTALK) AIDALA: He got checks from the -- COLLINS: He said the words, the first time. (CROSSTALK) CONWAY: Doing it a nice defense thing. AIDALA: And I said, doing it, all said he's allowed to re -- PHILLIP: But he also -- AIDALA: -- reimbursed. PHILLIP: But he also proved that Donald Trump -- Donald Trump confirmed that he was fully aware that he was being -- COOPER: Right. PHILLIP: -- reimbursed -- COOPER: He's tracking the FedEx number. AIDALA: But that's not the crime. PHILLIP: Yes. AIDALA: Abby, but that's not a crime. PHILLIP: I mean, by being reimbursed -- CONWAY: My friend on the other side of table -- PHILLIP: Again, this is why I think -- CONWAY: -- is doing the perfect defense lawyer thing -- AIDALA: It's not a crime. TOOBIN: No, but -- but -- CONWAY: -- which is basically chop up all the evidence -- AIDALA: It's not a crime. CONWAY: -- bit by bit. TOOBIN: But George, no. CONWAY: And to make it a said-about (ph). TOOBIN: I don't think that's entirely fair, because I mean, yes, I think, it is quite -- it's going to be very clear to the jury that these -- this money was a reimbursement, it wasn't a legal fee. But the corporate records being falsified. How do you tie Trump to the corporate records being falsified? CONWAY: Because -- TOOBIN: That I think is still problematic. PHILLIP: Yes. CONWAY: Because he knew that's what -- that's what was going on, that it was being done on his behalf, and to be signing these things that say that they're legal reimbursements, he knew and he's getting -- and it's grossed up, but he could, you know, he you think he didn't figure out that, wait a minute. She -- this was $130,000, and I'm writing checks for $35,000 a month? I mean, he's a dumb guy. But he's not that dumb. COOPER: Has Michael Cohen publicly said that Trump knew that these -- that it was being filed as legal expenses? TOOBIN: Not that I'm aware of. HONIG: Michael Cohen has publicly said a million times that Trump is as guilty as can be. And I think this is important. When we're talking about this meeting -- COOPER: Right. Right. But he hasn't -- but he hasn't -- TOOBIN: But that's -- yes, that's a different issue. HONIG: He hasn't gotten to that level of legal specificity. COOPER: He -- I mean, but he's -- HONIG: Yes. COOPER: He's had a podcast. He's written a book called "Revenge." You would think if that was -- HONIG: Right. COOPER: -- something he was going to testify to -- PHILLIP: I -- COOPER: -- he would have mentioned it all. HONIG: And this is exactly the point. We're going to get into a meeting here. We know the meeting happened. There's documentation of that. But what happened and what was said is going to entirely come down to Michael Cohen's word. And it's really not a question for the jury of who's a bigger liar, Michael Cohen or Donald Trump. Prosecutors have the burden. And if the jury hears Michael Cohen's account of what happened, including what he just said there and decides, we don't trust this guy beyond a reasonable doubt? There's no number on it, but a very high standard? Then they have the right to say, not guilty. PHILLIP: I think that -- HONIG: It's not a Trump versus Cohen. It's do we trust Cohen, to that level of reasonable doubt. [21:15:00] PHILLIP: I think Arthur is making a good point about the dropdown menu. But I still have questions about whether that's really the standard. I mean, if any -- if there are kingpins, who are convicted of crimes that involve things that they don't physically have to do themselves, I mean do they have to do the dropdown menu themselves to be guilty of that crime? TOOBIN: No, certainly not. PHILLIP: So, I guess, where do we go? What is between doing the dropdown menu yourself, and what the prosecutors need to -- COOPER: I mean, would he -- (CROSSTALK) COOPER: Would he have known that there's a limited, you know, whether you notice it's a dropdown menu, but that there's a limited number of ways to code and expense. I mean, if he's been a penny-pincher and monitored expenses and FedEx packages, would he have known, oh, yes, there's six things you can code it as legal issues -- legal -- AIDALA: Prosecutor. PHILLIP: Well -- well -- AIDALA: Number one, the prosecutor got to prove that. But one more thing, Anderson. There is another piece of this. It's not just the bookkeeping. They then have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt it was done to commit another crime. And we haven't -- what evidence is there have been so far, articulating what crime that is? Allegedly, when I was in court today, I heard they're going to call a federal election law expert, or maybe a state election law expert. So there's the bookkeeping part. COOPER: Well it's a -- it's a campaign contribution. AIDALA: And then there's what's the next crime? COOPER: Isn't that what it is? AIDALA: But it's -- but no, because it came out of his own money. CONWAY: No. No. But it's illegal -- AIDALA: It came out of -- it's his money. CONWAY: No. Under Federal Election Campaign Act, it would be illegal. If I were running -- if I were running for something or other, and I wanted to contribute money to my campaign, and Kaitlan fronted the money, and then I reimbursed her, and then I didn't disclose it? I'd go to jail. TOOBIN: That's a violation, yes. CONWAY: That's a violation. It's not hard. COOPER: George Conway, it's good to have you. Thank you. Coming up next, more from the full trial transcript, just out. Also, in light of all we've just been saying, in so many ways about Michael Cohen, hear what he is saying for himself tonight, about the prospect of taking the stand. And later, former Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Harry Litman, joins us. His thoughts from his time in court today. [21:20:00] (COMMERCIAL BREAK) COOPER: After a day that saw Stormy Daniels finish testifying, the prosecution saying they won't be calling Karen McDougal. That leaves Michael Cohen as perhaps the last and biggest name prosecution witness still to come. Speaking today on the MeidasTouch Law podcast, Cohen said he's expected to be called to the stand next week, and sounded happy to testify. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) COHEN: I'm kind of looking forward to it because again, can't be finished with something unless you start it, right? It's kind of like an entrepreneurial mindset. You can't be in it, unless you're willing to get in it. And so, there we go. You know, sooner this thing starts, the sooner this thing finishes. And that way I can, yes, this too shall pass. (END VIDEO CLIP) COOPER: We'll be looking ahead to that until the moment comes, and no doubt looking back on it for a long time as well. Right now, John Berman is back with more from the proceedings today. JOHN BERMAN, CNN ANCHOR/CORRESPONDENT: You guys were talking about how there has been a lot of evidence, and a lot of testimony, about how closely Donald Trump looks at finances, looks at things about money. And Madeleine Westerhout, who was his White House assistant, gatekeeper, was asked about an exchange that she had, over an invoice that came in front of her. And this is the testimony from the prosecutor, Rebecca Mangold, asking the questions. What's the total amount of the invoice? Westerhout says $6,974. Mangold says, looking at how the handwriting towards the top, do you know whose handwriting that is? Westerhout says, I believe that's Rhona Graff's. That's Trump's Organization assistant. Mangold says, can you read what's written in Ms. Graff's writing? And then Westerhout says "Dear Mr. President, if Winged Foot," which is the golf club in Westchester, New York, "will allow me to suspend your membership for four or eight years, do you want me to look into it, or do you want me to continue paying annual dues and the food minimum?" I believe that's just "RG." The initials. Do you see the handwriting below that? Westerhout says yes. Whose is that? Westerhout says, that's the President. Mangold says, do you know what type of pen was used for the President's handwriting? Westerhout says it looks to be a Sharpie. We've heard Sharpie all over the testimony so far. Then Mangold says what's written below the note in Mr. Trump's handwriting? Westerhout says, "Hey." Mangold says, is there -- handwriting -- something else written in the President's? And then Westerhout says yes. "ASAP." OK. In other words, yes, pay the $6,000 dues to Wing Foot, ASAP, OK. So again, this is Donald Trump being -- paying very close attention to his golf dues with the food privileges. COLLINS: And they showed the document in the courtroom. It actually said yes, pay, OK. BERMAN: Yes. COLLINS: I mean, making clear, one, she's checking, do you still want to pay this membership, while you're President of the United States? And he says yes. But then also, it's when Madeleine Westerhout testifies about the other financial conversation about the frame that she had. And so, I don't know where they're going with this tomorrow. It's going to be much more about Michael Cohen, and his appearances at the White House, I assume. But they are clearly trying to get at what they could even see from Rhona Graff's emails and her concern about his spending. COOPER: Arthur, you were in the court for the beginning of her testimony, Madeleine Westerhout. AIDALA: Yes. COOPER: What did you think of her? AIDALA: Well the first question was, are you here, because you want to be here? Are you here under subpoena? And she made it clear that she was there under subpoena. And it was -- she does appear to be particularly nervous. It were very simple questions. It was about FedExes, and how the checks went back and forth, and if there was one missing. And she made it clear there were checks he refused to sign, or like, but not told her, they just would go, come back to her unsigned. [21:25:00] My understanding was in the afternoon, she was very gracious, talked a lot about him and Melania, or at least touched upon on how he would call her, and he was -- I mean, she paints a picture of him being a doting husband, which I don't really know if that's an accurate statement. But that's when she said how before he was going on Marine One, he would call her and look out the window and wave. And then, she just broke out crying, I think, because, you know, it looked that witness -- we've spoken about this. COOPER: Yes. AIDALA: That witness stand is -- I got to testify at one time against a client, who took a phone number, and put it on my name. So, I had been representing him. While I'm representing him, this is all public record, while I'm representing him, he takes out a phone number and puts it under Arthur Aidala. And he's making like criminal calls that was in my name. And then, I had to go and testify against my own client in federal court, which was -- BERMAN: And you cried? AIDALA: And I cried. No, no, but I -- you know, I was really nervous. I have no problem admitting to you. COOPER: Yes. It's -- AIDALA: I was really nervous. COOPER: It's hard testifying on the stand. AIDALA: Yes. COOPER: I mean, it's not -- AIDALA: And then, when you're testifying at someone who clearly she's fond of, and you look around that room and it's packed with people. Yes, it's emotional. PHILLIP: I mean, this is not actually relevant to this particular case. But it is interesting to me that bringing up Melania and the family. I mean, Madeleine was fired from the White House, because she was trashing other members of the Trump family to the media, when at a dinner. So the baggage, and one of the reasons she feels so bad is because as she's said, publicly, she feels bad that she had a moment of poor judgment, and in the process said a lot of bad things about the Trump family. Now, with Trump sitting in front of her, she had an opportunity, it looks like she took it, to say some nice things about Trump, to say some nice things about his relationship with his wife, and so on and so forth. COOPER: She -- TOOBIN: No, but I'm interested -- what I'm so interested in about these financial things, is, they have done a great job, of showing how meticulous Trump is, about even small expenditures, from someone who claims to be a billionaire. But the thing that I keep coming back to is, did Trump know how these expenditures were characterized on the corporate records? Because that's the crime in this case. And that's not covered by that testimony. BERMAN: No. And there's nothing in any -- and I've got a stack of transcripts now in my office like as tall as I am, which is 6-4. And none of it -- AIDALA: You -- what? BERMAN: None of it gets to that. But what you do see is what they're leading up to, which is Michael Cohen, who is going to have to answer to all this. And even in the Madeleine Westerhout testimony, it was setting the table for Michael Cohen. There's the exchange, you showed his testimony before Congress. But they talk about an email exchange that Westerhout had with Cohen, prior to this February 2017 meeting. The prosecutor says, what's the subject line of this email? And this is an email exchange with Michael Cohen. Westerhout says, Wednesday meeting. Mangold, can you please read the content of the email to the jury? Westerhout says, yes. "Michael, we're confirmed for 4:30 on Wednesday. What I need from you is the following: Full name as it appears on your ID. Date of birth. Social Security number. U.S. citizen, yes or no. Born in U.S., yes or no. Current city and state of residence. Thanks, Madeleine." Prosecutor says, do you recall why you were sending this email? And then Westerhout says, Mr. Cohen was coming in to meet with the President. Mangold says, do you recall seeing him when he came to visit? Westerhout says, not specifically. Mangold says, did this visit, ultimately, occur? Westerhout says yes. HONIG: So much of what the prosecution has been doing, over the last three weeks, is pre-corroborating Michael Cohen. When he gets on that stand, they want the jury to think oh, I remember this. I recognize this. We saw a document about this. We heard another piece of testimony about this. Even if it's a small thing like this. Now they know yes, that meeting absolutely happened. So when Michael Cohen gets up and says what happened in that meeting, they'll go OK, at least he's not completely fabricating that. There was an Oval Office meeting. We used to call it oak-tree corroboration as prosecutors, meaning if there's a murder scene, and someone mentions, oh, yes, it was next to an oak tree. I don't -- go take a photo of the oak tree. It doesn't prove that the murder happened. But it can help support your witnesses, just on a small detail. It can help prop them up. That's what they're bracing for. AIDALA: I think it's going to come down to, with Michael Cohen, because I agree with everything he's saying, Elie's saying. It's going to come down to like, honestly, three sentences in that meeting. HONIG: Yes. AIDALA: So because just to be clear, it's got to be -- I think it's been proven beyond a reasonable doubt, he's tight with money. He signed those checks. He knew where they were going and what they were for. It's going to come down to Michael Cohen saying, and I said to him, I'm just going to register them as legal expenses and not for real, OK? And Trump will -- he'll say Trump nodded or Trump said OK. And then he'll say, and by the way, you know, we're doing this, don't forget we did this, so that you would win the election, or -- it's going to come down to like sentences. COOPER: But -- but -- AIDALA: Not whether the checks were signed -- TOOBIN: That's -- that's -- AIDALA: Or the meeting took place. TOOBIN: That's unfair. There's a whole universe of witness -- there's more to it than just like what exchanged. AIDALA: OK. You made the point a minute ago, saying -- COOPER: But it wasn't Michael Cohen, putting in the writing down -- TOOBIN: Right, no. [21:30:00] AIDALA: No. But what Abby said was, how high or how low, right, does the hierarchy have to be? I think if Trump just says, file it as legal expenses, even though it's not, I think that's enough that someone else -- COOPER: Yes. AIDALA: -- he directs someone else to do it. PHILLIP: It seems to me that the prosecution has to establish why didn't they do it the other way, right, like, what is the other way? And why didn't they choose that path? To me, the most obvious other way is just to give Michael Cohen the money, say that it was a reimbursement, anything, it literally could be for anything. They didn't do it that way. And the question is why. That question has not been answered by the prosecution. In addition to them not answering the question of not only why did they do it that way, but did Trump recognize that there was a choice made about how to do it, and that they chose the illegal way, essentially. COOPER: John Berman, thanks very much. Coming up, another moment from the transcript, this time from Judge Merchan. His final words to the former President's attorneys, about how they opened the door to Stormy Daniels' detailed account of her time with Donald Trump. (COMMERCIAL BREAK) [21:35:00] COOPER: Want to read the judge's final word from that exchange with the defense, which ended today's hearing. It's about why he said prosecutors had a right to have Stormy Daniels testify, about an alleged sexual encounter with the former President back in 2006. Quoting from Judge Merchan. "And the fact that you went after her right on opening statements, attacking whether -- attacking, your claim that they never had sex, you didn't attack that there was a falsification of business records, you didn't attack any of the other elements of the offense, you said my client denies that there was ever a sexual encounter. Again, as I said before, right off the bat, that puts your client's word against Ms. Daniels' word. And that, in my mind, allows the People to do what they can to rehabilitate her and to corroborate her story. Your motion for a mistrial is denied." Joining us now is former U.S. Attorney, and Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Harry Litman, who has been in the courtroom during the trial. What was the dynamic like, between the judge and the defense team, in those 10 or 15 minutes in the court? HARRY LITMAN, FORMER DEPUTY ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL: Yes. It was not like a standard legal argument. It wasn't low-key and academic. It bristled. And there was a sort of dynamism to it that you don't normally have. COOPER: Which, by the way, he has not, in previous messages, to the defense table. I mean, when I was there last week, he said to, to Todd Blanche -- that was the day after Trump had claimed that he wasn't allowed to testify -- in a very calm way, he said, let me just, you know, maybe your client is misinformed. Let me remind him, it's his total legal right. LITMAN: Right. COOPER: He was bending over backwards to be calm. This is a different tenor. LITMAN: I think that's right. It's not as if he was haranguing him. But it was definitely very sort of pitched. He attacked the professionalism of Necheles. He said, I can't trust Blanche. But it was if he let them both speak their piece. And then, it was almost as if he had already crafted an opinion that he could -- he'd said, I'd gone back and read the transcripts. You're wrong about this. But he really was -- it was fairly blistering. And he, it wasn't simply denying on the merits, but actually assailing the lawyers for trying to -- COOPER: Do you think not objecting more, by the defense, was a -- was a misstep by the Trump team? LITMAN: For sure. And it was one of the things he actually cited. And again, I mean, this was the point that seemed to have no answer. They've made this probably because Trump insists on it. The big dispute, was there any sex at all? And when they do that, in opening, Merchan's point was that means all these messy details, as they call them, the other -- one's messy details are credibility for -- AIDALA: Right. LITMAN: -- for someone in Stormy Daniels' position. In other words, you have to let her explain, so the jury can evaluate overall the truth of the story that's been so put, at hearing. COOPER: What was your perception of the cross-examination by Necheles? LITMAN: Yes, all in all, I thought it was not so effective. You really look for control. And Christmas on cross. And not only did she take a lot of -- you know, she landed a couple jabs. But again, because of this dynamic that they've said, it never happened, she needed a knockout punch, and came nowhere near that, I thought. And then, I think was a little over-aggressive, and the jury perceived it, in particular, when she basically implied, since you're a porn star, that how could you possibly be cowed by a 60-year-old billionaire looming over you? It seemed almost insulting in that way. So, I thought that she took a lot of chant -- lead with her chin a lot and got hit with it. And her very last question, isn't it a fact that you are making? No. And that's the end. So that, as opposed to sort of leading the jury to think that result on its own, and she went for broke a lot, and it was a mistake on her. TOOBIN: Harry, you've been in the courtroom a lot. LITMAN: Yes. TOOBIN: Who's winning? LITMAN: Well, look, the D.A. is winning, because of the basic dynamic. They have really, from Pecker, a very good choice for starters, drawn the whole narrative. We had today, it was one of five -- a pretty big day to day. You -- normally one, two things happen in a court. There were like five or six pretty big things. And one of them, a lot of people didn't even notice, but came in through Stormy. His admission in the Stormy suit that he did in fact reimburse Cohen, right? So, I mean, that's a -- that's a pretty big one. Where do they go from here? The Weisselberg writing. So Weisselberg and Cohen do it together. They -- were they freelancing? [21:40:00] The basic story, I think, is strong. There may be technical details, and as you know, a couple lawyers on the jury, about stitching up the precise intent with some of the precise 34 pieces of paper. They always had that problem. But the battle of the narrative, in part because of the stakes they've drawn, it never happened with Stormy, and emphasizing that, I think the D.A.'s winning. COOPER: Can somebody remind me? I mean I should know this. LITMAN: Yes. COOPER: But why isn't Allen Weisselberg testifying? HONIG: Well couple of reasons. LITMAN: It's -- HONIG: One, he's in prison. COOPER: Well I know he's in prison. HONIG: But that's not actually the full -- TOOBIN: He could bring in someone. HONIG: That's not the full answer. COOPER: There are buses. You can put somebody in -- HONIG: Right. Right. COOPER: -- and bring them. HONIG: The answer is he would clearly take the Fifth, I think. And often if that's the case, then judges will say, don't bother. I mean, you don't bring someone in. I know what happens in movies. But you don't bring a guy in, and he gets up in front of the jury and says, I take the Fifth. AIDALA: And they don't know what he's going to say. HONIG: Right. If it's clear he'd say -- (CROSSTALK) AIDALA: He could say, I did it all by myself, like so he's not going to talk to the prosecutor -- COOPER: He's untrustworthy in his first case? (CROSSTALK) TOOBIN: Yes, yes, yes. AIDALA: Yes, he may say, Donald Trump knew nothing about this. I was the bookkeeper for 35, whatever, in 40 years. I was the one who classified it that way. That's why he wouldn't be able to do it. LITMAN: It's a special problem. They sort of have it with Rhona Graff, who they went through quickly. Keith Schiller, are we going to see him? He comes in a lot today. AIDALA: Right. LITMAN: There are some people, who are super-loyal to Trump, and they're shying away from. COOPER: But could the defense call Weisselberg? LITMAN: Sure. TOOBIN: Well and they -- they could. But he might take the Fifth. LITMAN: But he may -- and talk about a cross-examination. TOOBIN: But he would also probably take the Fifth again. LITMAN: Yes. TOOBIN: I mean, regardless of who calls him. LITMAN: If he doesn't, he's dead-meat. COOPER: Unless he wanted to do Trump a solid? AIDALA: He -- LITMAN: Yes. AIDALA: And then get indicted again. It's simply -- TOOBIN: Yes, I mean, I -- (CROSSTALK) AIDALA: -- possibly. TOOBIN: I -- yes, that's possible. But I -- it seems like if you are going to take the Fifth, in this subject, you are going to take the Fifth, in this subject. But maybe not. Maybe he wanted to do -- to do. LITMAN: He's not on the witness list. COOPER: Right. TOOBIN: He's not on the defense witness list. LITMAN: Right. AIDALA: And it's -- look, the defense hasn't called anyone yet. And they don't have to have someone on their witness. LITMAN: That's true. AIDALA: The only thing I want to say about Stormy's cross-examination. First of all, Jeffrey mentioned this a long time ago. I do think they're trying to please Trump, the lawyers are. And that's a balancing act. That's a -- you know, you got a guy paying you a lot of money, to be his lawyer, and he wants it out there that that did not happen. Susan Necheles, though, leading with her chin, did put up a piece of paper, saying you signed a document, saying you never had sex with Donald Trump, right? LITMAN: Yes, right. AIDALA: Yes, I did. So that was a lie, right? Right. You know? And so there was -- LITMAN: Right. But the lie they need is -- is the whole story is concocted. That's the thing, because I agree with you. But I think normally even with a very big-shot lawyer, you say, here's how it's going to be, you know? You shut up now, and listen to me. That's what his -- that's what -- AIDALA: That's not easy to do with Trump. LITMAN: -- own defense (ph). HONIG: Arthur, what you'd would? TOOBIN: Yes. HONIG: I mean, you've represented some big egos, big personalities. I'm sure there's been times when -- AIDALA: Beg. HONIG: You beg them? AIDALA: You beg. I mean, I -- you know, you beg them, like listen, bro -- HONIG: A lot. AIDALA: -- I've been doing this a long time. LITMAN: Yes. AIDALA: You got to trust me on this. And we could talk to -- I mean, I've done it. We'll talk to three other lawyers. If they disagree with me, we'll do it your way. COLLINS: OK. But so several times, on Tuesday, Trump was nudging Susan Necheles to get up and object. COOPER: Yes. COLLINS: And we saw her do it at least twice after he nudged her. And today, the whole criticism from the judge was why didn't you object more? I mean, it was -- Trump was the one -- AIDALA: Listen, obviously that was -- COLLINS: -- nudging her to object more. AIDALA: -- and clearly was a mistake. Look, we all make mistakes. COLLINS: But we always talk about Trump influencing his attorneys. And trust me, he does. And it's incredibly difficult to be a Trump attorney. We've talked to many of the former ones. HONIG: Yes. COLLINS: But he was the one urging her to object more. She was not objecting more. And maybe she would have been -- HONIG: Yes. AIDALA: Well it goes to Elie -- what Elie said before. It also, like you don't want to make it look like you're hiding anything from the jury, like, oh my god, she's got something we don't want anyone to hear. So, it's a balancing act. COOPER: Harry Litman, thank you. Appreciate to have your perspective. LITMAN: Thank you very much. Always. COOPER: Ahead, the pushback from a key ally of the former President, who came to the courthouse today. We'll be right back. [21:45:00] (COMMERCIAL BREAK) COOPER: And joining the former President in court today, one of his key allies on the Hill, from his home state of Florida, Senator Rick Scott, a potential vice presidential contender. Here he is, defending Trump at the courthouse, by talking about several whom Trump cannot mention himself under his gag order. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) SEN. RICK SCOTT (R-FL): What he is going through is just despicable. Let's look at who involved -- who's involved in doing this. The lead prosecutor was the number three person at that Biden -- the Biden Justice Department. The judge's daughter is a political operative. The lead prosecutor's wife is a significant donor to Democrats. (END VIDEO CLIP) COOPER: And joining our panel now, former Trump White House Communications Director, Alyssa Farah Griffin. Interesting to see Scott there, kind of singing the song that Trump wants him to sing. ALYSSA FARAH GRIFFIN, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: I mean, it was so thirsty. Listen, yes, he's somebody who loves -- COOPER: He was so thirsty. FARAH GRIFFIN: He'd love to be considered as a vice presidential contender. He also has aspirations to replace Mitch McConnell as the leader in the Senate, both things that obviously require him being in Donald Trump's good gracious -- graces. We've seen this before. We saw Vivek Ramaswamy show up at another courthouse, Marjorie Taylor Greene. It's a way to endear themselves to Trump. He remembers people who are with him at his low points. Mark Meadows, for example. 2016, after Access Hollywood, when people were thinking about walking away from Donald Trump, Mark Meadows, his wife and other congressional spouses went on the campaign trail, to say, be with this guy, despite this tape. He never forgot it. He kept Jim Jordan close to him. He kept Mark Meadows close, because he remembered that. So, Donald Trump will take note of this. He's going to -- COLLINS: Also -- FARAH GRIFFIN: He's going to appreciate it. COLLINS: The Senate was voting today. That -- I mean, there were -- they were casting votes on important bills today. COOPER: You know, there's, you know. AIDALA: Priorities. HONIG: There's a hundred of them. AIDALA: Priorities. COOPER: Potato. Potato. How much do you think the aggressive cross-examination actually pleased Donald Trump today? FARAH GRIFFIN: I think it probably pleased Trump. But I think it really hurt the defense. I think this juxtaposition, where you have Maddie Westerhout up, and they're talking about oh, you were 28, you made some mistakes? But then attacking Stormy Daniels, who was 27 at the time that this encounter with Donald Trump took place? The jury can piece that together, and see that there is such different treatment for these two women. [21:50:00] There is the -- the hard part of being, serving Donald Trump, the client is that often catering to his instincts, and what he wants to see is actually totally unhelpful to the case, you're trying to win for him. And I think that they went way too far today. AIDALA: It's funny. Anderson, I can just say a guest that's been now on CNN, retired Judge George Grasso, who comes on my radio show with me every night. He's been in court every day. And just to show you how people react differently. He said on my radio show, tonight, today was the best day for the defense, the combination of attacking Stormy, and then the Secretary bragging about the Trump family, and how he said, they've never had a day so consistently, but with positive stuff for Trump. I'm not saying he's right. But it just shows you like how you don't know what jurors are thinking. FARAH GRIFFIN: Well -- COLLINS: Well there was one -- FARAH GRIFFIN: -- and to be clear, I do think it was a good -- Maddie Westerhout was incredibly helpful to Donald Trump today. PHILLIP: Yes. FARAH GRIFFIN: That was -- PHILLIP: There was a piece of her testimony in particular, about the fallout from the Access Hollywood tape that really seemed -- she was trying to suggest that Trump himself was not all that worried about it. All the worry was over at the RNC. Whether that -- I mean, maybe, Alyssa, you can speak to that. But whether that is true or not, that undercut the prosecution's argument that Trump was the one, who was -- was part of the panic about how this was going to play in public. COOPER: I mean, he apologized on video that night. FARAH GRIFFIN: Well, I think we forget that -- COOPER: Yes. FARAH GRIFFIN: -- he did apologize, because now that -- COOPER: Which was -- FARAH GRIFFIN: -- seems like something he would never do. He certainly was concerned. And I think Hope Hicks alluded to it, or at least those closest to him were. They were trying to craft this statement. Maddie was at the RNC. So, she wasn't part of these conversations. But there was an acknowledgement that this was a very, very real problem. The vice presidential candidate, Mike Pence, was very concerned at the time. COOPER: I mean, Hope Hicks testified. FARAH GRIFFIN: Yes. PHILLIP: Yes. COOPER: She seemed real concerned. FARAH GRIFFIN: So, and you have to, you know, attorneys, they prepare their clients. And Maddie very likely watched Hope Hicks' testimony and can take -- get some takeaway from that. And I think, in some ways, came more prepared to be a little bit more effusive of Donald Trump, in ways that Hope maybe didn't quite as much. Leaning into his relationship with Melania, and she was the real boss, what a great boss, he was, giving her these opportunities. And then this key point that she actually was unbothered by the Access Hollywood tape. HONIG: It's interesting to hear Alyssa talk about Donald Trump's political and PR instincts, which are good. I mean, a lot of times, he defies conventional wisdom. But he's gotten pretty far by following his instincts. But legal and courtroom instincts are a little bit of a different creation, right? It's -- has to be much more strategic, much more tactical. I wonder if he's his own worst enemy, when it comes to this, when he's pushing his lawyers to do things that could be taken both ways. But I mean, my read certainly was, were disruptive to his defense. He may be about to find out. I guess we'll see. AIDALA: What -- not tell -- telling stories out of school. But I think -- HONIG: Please do. AIDALA: -- my educational -- educated guess is the one of the reasons why Joe Tacopina is not his lawyer in that courtroom is because Joe and I were in the D.A.'s office together. I know him very well. He's a brilliant lawyer. He's a great strategist, in that courtroom. Say anything you want. Those jurors love him. But Joe, not -- Joe's not going to take anything his -- HONIG: Yes. AIDALA: His client is never going to tell him what to do. Never. And I -- that may be why Joe's not in that courtroom now. COLLINS: Well, and they really used a lot of Trump's tactics against him today, with Stormy Daniels. I mean, she was kind of the embodiment of that in several ways. One, when it came to just his attacks on her, and her attacks on him. They were trying to use her posts about him that were derogatory, as a way to discredit her. And she said, OK, well, I was just responding to him. I mean, he called her a horseface. He called her out at rallies of his. They also were saying, well, you were just trying to make money off of this, you've got this candle, you've got this T-shirt. Donald Trump himself has raised so much money off of his indictments as well. And so, that was an interesting part of this is to see how Trump's own tactics that he has used for years, were being used against him in the cross-examination. FARAH GRIFFIN: Well and I think that the key figures, for proving kind of the second half of this case, are going to be Stormy Daniels and then Michael Cohen, who have been just bloodied up this entire trial. I think she was much better defending herself today. But their honesty called into question. And then contrasting that with Hope Hicks and Maddie Westerhout, you know, the public didn't see them, but two women, who present so buttoned-up, they speak well, they're authoritative, but then they're also emotional. They're also crying over their caring and like love for Donald Trump and loyalty to him. It's a very interesting juxtaposition that I could see resonating with a jury. I could see them saying, look at these professional women, who look up to him, admire him. Despite all the horrible things we've heard about him, they still want to be with him. PHILLIP: And then but the -- the juxtaposition to that is that if the jury believes that that same guy is the guy, who was in Lake Tahoe with Stormy Daniels, that really undercuts a lot of it. I mean, Stormy herself undercuts Trump's credibility as a sympathetic figure. The fact that she exists in this context, the fact that there is even a debate over whether they had sex at that hotel room, when he was 60, and she was 27? If anybody on the jury believes that, it's going to be really hard for them to buy the sob stories, about how great of a boss he was to these other two women. [21:55:00] COOPER: Thank you, everybody. Appreciate it. A lot to digest. Court is in session tomorrow. The news continues, including our special primetime coverage of the Trump trial, after a short break. We'll be right back. (COMMERCIAL BREAK) [22:00:00] … CNN NewsNight with Abby Phillip Aired May 09, 2024 - 22:00 ET THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED. [22:00:00] ABBY PHILLIP, CNN HOST: Welcome to a special edition of NewsNight. I'm Abby Phillip in New York alongside Kaitlan Collins. Tonight, combat in court, Day 14 of Donald Trump's hush money trial provided a lesson in how not to make friends, how to alienate the judge and how to maybe alienate the jury as well. Stormy Daniels took the stand yet again under cross-examination for the defense for Donald Trump and spent a whole lot of time asking questions about what they originally objected to, the details of her alleged tryst with the former President of the United States. Now, the crescendo of this hours-long stint on the witness stand all led up to this. Trump's attorney, Susan Necheles, heavy handedly asserting that the adult film actress had made it all up. Necheles, and you've bragged about how good you are about writing porn movies and writing really good stories and writing really good dialogue, right? Daniels, yes. Necheles, and now you have a story you've been telling about having sex with Donald Trump, right? Daniels, and if that story were untrue, I would have written it a lot better. There was laughter in the courtroom. KAITLAN COLLINS, CNN HOST: Daniels, however, of course, is not the only headline witness to take her turn under the oath. The jury also heard from Madeleine Westerhout, the former gatekeeper, really, to the president and the head of Oval Office operations. She sat right outside the Oval Office when Donald Trump was president, and she recounted how she functioned as this unofficial delivery service at time, running these checks between Trump Tower and the White House. She also gave the jury a window into something that we haven't heard up to this point really the Trump marriage and Donald Trump as she described it, his sweet sometimes doting relationship with his wife, the former first lady, Melania Trump. The judge, Juan Merchan, also taking off multiple reasons why the prosecution annoyed, even angered him with what the defense didn't object to as Stormy Daniels was on the testimony, was on the witness stand. Judge Merchan asking the Trump defense why they didn't object to the mention of a condom, saying that he couldn't understand their ask for a mistrial with all that they let go during the presentation of evidence. PHILLIP: And tonight, also a challenge directly from Stormy Daniels herself to the president of the United States. The adult film star and a key witness for the prosecution posting this on X, real men respond to testimony by being sworn in, taking the stand in court. Oh, wait, never mind. Here with me to break everything down that we learned today inside that courtroom, Lee Zeldin, Joey Jackson, Anna Navarro and Brian Stelter. So, let's start with Joey because, Joey, you've got the goods. Give us a little bit of what happened in the courtroom. JOEY JACKSON, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: What didn't happen in the courtroom, Abby. All right, so let's start with the cross-examination. I want to talk about Necheles, defense counsel, and Stormy Daniels. So, let's get into it. Necheles, defense attorney for Trump. So, just so I can be clear on what you were saying, you've acted and had sex in over 200 porn movies, right? Stormy Daniels, 150-ish, yes. Defense Counsel Necheles, and there are naked men and naked women having sex, including yourself in those movies, right? Daniels, yes. Necheles, defense attorney, but according to you, seeing a man sitting on a bed in a T-shirt and boxer shorts was so upsetting that you got lightheaded, blood left your hands and feet and you almost fainted, right? Daniels, yes, when you are not expecting a man twice your age to be in their underwear. I have seen my husband naked almost every day. If I came out of the bathroom and it was not my husband and it was Mr. Trump on the bed, I would probably have the same reaction. Defense Counsel Necheles, and that made you feel like you were going to faint. Stormy Daniels, absolutely. If I came out of the bathroom and I saw an older man in his underwear that I wasn't expecting seeing there, yes. So, the question becomes, Abby, why have this contentious cross- examination? My argument is that the cross examination was not for the jury, It was to satisfy Mr. Trump, the client. The fact is, is they got everything in through Stormy Daniels yesterday that you can argue to the jury. It's a bias witness. She's here and motivated by that bias. You can't believe anything she said. I think the play was for Donald Trump to say, I want you to humiliate her, number one, I want you to reestablish my credibility, I want you to deny that affair, totally unnecessary to go in on her like that. Who got the better of this exchange? Let the jury, and let the 13th juror at home, you decide who got the better. COLLINS: I mean, Ana Navarro, I have to know your response to that, because obviously, you know, what Stormy Daniels does for a living doesn't translate to the fact that she should just be comfortable with seeing a half dressed man anywhere she goes. ANA NAVARRO, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: Well, look, first of all I would really like to nominate Joey Jackson for dramatic reading. [22:05:00] I think he deserves a Tony nomination. I'm going to work on that. JACKSON: Done. NAVARRO: But, as to your question, Kaitlan, look, I think the reason that she felt lightheaded, I think the reason she had that reaction, first, let's remember that this is a woman in her 20s. Yes, she does what she does. But when you see a man in his underwear you thought you were going there for dinner, and all of a sudden he's sitting in a bed in his underwear, that's telling you what the expectation from him of what should come next is obviously sex. And so I think it's a pretty big deal for her to process as she's reacting to what she's saying. So, you know, to me, it's a very credible reaction. PHILLIP: And not just any man. NAVARRO: And I'll tell you this, I suspect for a lot of women who've dealt with sexual harassment, who've dealt with men doing power plays on them, this may have resonated. It resonated with me. PHILLIP: Yes. I mean, you don't even need necessarily the specter of this being some kind of coercive dynamic. Donald Trump is an extremely famous, powerful man. And that, I think, is the elephant in the room. It's almost like this exchange, and so many of these exchanges with the defense, you can really read them both ways. I mean, I think the defense could easily have listened to that exchange and been very happy with how Stormy Daniels explained herself in that moment. BRIAN STELTER, SPECIAL CORRESPONDENT, VANITY FAIR: It does seem like we're seeing 2024's post-MeToo, kind of a cultural awakening, all the progress this country and other countries have made in the last six, seven years, collide up against decades-old attitudes about men and women, right. And we have to remember, this was in 2006. This was so early on before the MeToo movement. Here we have, as you said, a woman in her 20s, a man who's about 60 years old. And what does she say? She says, quote, my own insecurities made me feel like I had to sleep with him. Not pressure necessarily from Donald Trump in a physical way, nothing violent, just her own insecurities. It was one of the most revealing moments I thought from Stormy Daniels today. NAVARRO: How many cases like that, how many examples like that have we heard of women who had that kind of experience with Harvey Weinstein, who had that kind of experience with Charlie Rose that they allege, right, where they go in supposedly for a meeting, supposedly to meet somebody and end up seeing a guy in his bathrobe, COLLINS: Yes, but -- NAVARRO: An old guy in his bathrobe. COLLINS: And the reason the Trump team was so incensed about the Day 1 of Stormy Daniels is testimony is kind of they didn't want that comparison because Stormy Daniels in her interview -- in her testimony and in her interview with Anderson Cooper said this wasn't that kind of moment, this was consensual, I wasn't forced into this, I wasn't coerced into this. And so, Congressman, I kind of wonder what your reaction was as you were listening to how the cross-examination went today and the point the judge made at the end, which was why did you linger on this part so much because you're only kind of drilling it into the jury's ears, as he phrased it? Did you think that was a smart tactic? FMR. REP. LEE ZELDIN (R-NY): It's a tactical decision to be made. I wasn't in the courtroom today and they would be the best ones to talk strategy on any day, prosecution and defense. I would say that each day that I'm watching, I was a prosecutor as well, never served on the defense side in a case, anything like this, of course. And what you see is a really difficult to prove charge. These are misdemeanors that carry a two-year statute of limitation. The theory is that in order to be able to charge it now, the district attorney is going to have to demonstrate that this was done in pursuit of another crime. The district attorney has not yet said what that other crime is. And you get to the heart of it, we're now three weeks into the trial. And I think the time has come. I would have argued that this is something that should have been cleared before the trial started, but the time has come for Bragg, Bragg's office, to indicate to the defense counsel how it is that a misdemeanor that has a two year statute of limitation that expired many years ago can get brought now. Now is the time, if it hasn't come already, to indicate what is the underlying crime. JACKSON: So, I can answer that question. First of all, that ship has sailed. It's been litigated. The reality is, is we know towards COVID and as a result of that -- ZELDIN: What's the underlying crime? JACKSON: Let me speak. First, that and then I'll address that. The first issue is with respect to the statute of limitations. There was a tolling of the statute during COVID for all cases, not just Donald Trump's cases. And as a result of that, it's told. And so you can make the argument that it's statute of limitations out, you lose. Because the reality is we're here and we wouldn't be here but for the statute of limitation to the issue with respect to the underlying crime, I think we all know. The reality is that all the evidence is going to show the issue of the election of boosting the election prospects. The challenge, these are all talking points. What you said most respectfully that have been rebuffed, rebuted, we're done, we're done. ZELDING: All I was asking what the crime that's being charged. JACKSON: Look, the reality is, is the crime being charged relates to the election. That's not a mystery to anybody, right? ZELDIN: Says who? With the respect that says you, not the district attorney. [22:10:01] JACKSON: No, no, no. I don't say anything. I'm here to analyze the case. I said nothing. What I'm doing is looking at the case. Let's look at the case, because that's what we're here to talk about. We're here to talk about the fact that they're arguing that that's boosted election prospects. It boosted it as a result of an end around, right, and using this for campaign purposes to bury and hide a story. And, by the way, you know, you could say what you want, but for a person who didn't have sex with Stormy Daniels, for a person who said, you know, this deny, deny, you spent an awful lot of time trying to cover up something that never happened. In the event it didn't occur, let her tell her story, and then you come out and you say, nonsense, is she kidding me? Instead, you hide it, you hush money, and then you use your personal checking account in order to make a payment for it. You could speak about statute of limitations, you could speak about what crime, I think the crime the prosecutor is demonstrating is pretty clear to me. ZELDIN: I have to jump in. You have to prove a crime. And how do you prove a crime, and how are you, innocent until proven guilty, any defendant who's in the court of law, how do you go through the process of preparing for a trial where the district attorney has to prove a crime, and they won't even tell you what the crime is? Now I understand that you're saying what you think the theory is. The Department of Justice investigated this and didn't prosecute. The FEC, the Federal Elections Commission, did not pursue this. PHILLIP: Just one second. I just want to settle this first, settle this down for a second. They don't have to say it's this X, Y, and Z statute. They have to prove that a crime was committed. And one of the crimes could absolutely be that Trump tried to use Michael Cohen to make a payment to hide the fact that that payment was made that would have otherwise needed to have been reported as a campaign contribution. ZELDIN: But you know what's unfortunate though is that -- so we're all here guessing, you could say educated guess. You can say this is where I think the district attorney is going. And I understand that and I respect that opinion that you have to come up with a theory. All I'm saying is, I believe that the district attorney should be stating what is the underlying crime that allows you to bring 34 misdemeanors, elevating them to a felony, to bring them now. All I'm saying is that we're three weeks into the trial, and I think the time has come, it should have come already, to make it clear what it is, because the prosecution is going to have to prove that there was a pursuit of a crime, and the defense is going to have to put up a defense. JACKSON: So, two things. The first thing is, is we've heard the argument repeatedly that it was passed on by the federal government, they could have prosecuted this. Let me tell you, first of all, I'm a defense attorney. I believe in the presumption of innocence. Mr. Trump is presumed innocent until proven guilty. I have tried cases, right? And I had tried a case in the Southern District, right, not so long ago. Where, right? The Bronx D.A. and the Eastern District passed on the case. So, the fact that somebody passed on a case means nothing, means nothing, that's the reality, number one. And number two, the other reality is, as it comes to proving or establishing what the underlying crime was, they said at the outset, this case is about a conspiracy and a cover up. And so what were they covering up and what were they conspiring to do? The case is not over. And I think at the end of the day, there'll be more proof submitted, and it'll be up to the jury to make the determination. COLLINS: Luckily, we have plenty of time for this robust debate. ZELDIN: But I just want to say that the D.A.'s office declined to prosecute. Vance's office looked into this. The Manhattan District Attorney's Office declined to prosecute. PHILLIP: First of all, the case is not over yet. We still have more to come on that, more to come on the show as well. Everyone, stick around for us. Coming up next, we'll speak with a friend of Stormy Daniels who has come up in court twice this week now. We'll ask her about the grilling that her friend faced on the witness stand. Plus, with Trump's former personal assistant set to return to the stand tomorrow and Michael Cohen still ahead, we'll take a look at where the prosecution stands. You're watching a special edition of NewsNight. (COMMERCIAL BREAK) [22:15:00] PHILLIP: Stormy Daniels is back on the witness stand today, concluding more than seven hours of testimony that started on Tuesday. Trump's lawyers spent their entire cross-examination attacking Daniels credibility and repeatedly suggesting that she lied about her story. They also highlighted her work in the pornography industry to discredit her. My next guest is a friend and a colleague of Stormy Daniels' whose name actually came up in the trial on Tuesday and was referenced again today in court. Alana Evans says she was almost in that room that night in 2006 and says Trump told her over the phone to come party. Evans decided not to and would eventually speak out publicly after the two initially denied the affair. Alana Evans joins us once again. Alana, good to see you. Before we get into Stormy's testimony, which I definitely want to get your take on, your reaction to your name coming up in court again, it wasn't really by name explicitly, but here is what the defense said to you to the court about this gag order. She said she was on television last night talking about what happened and also corroborating what Ms. Daniels said. This isn't President Trump, again, being able to say this never happened. This isn't true. It's now him having to not be able to respond to this new version of events that now deals very deeply with a very different issue than a sexual event that took place in 2006. What's your reaction to that? ALANA EVANS, ADULT ACTRESS, PRESIDENT OF ADULT PERFORMANCE ARTISTS' GUILD: It's funny to me because Trump has had full opportunity to talk about this ever since it came out in 2016 and 2017, and their choice, and his choice at that time, was to continue to speak through Michael Cohen and say that it was all lies. [22:20:00] It's not as if he has anything new to add to this, which is telling the truth, and as Stormy so eloquently put earlier, he can take the stand and testify himself if he wants to get his voice out there so badly. PHILLIP: You said earlier this week that you had not been reached out to by anyone to be a part of this case. Is that still true? EVANS: That's correct, not yet. PHILLIP: Have you had a chance to speak at all with your friend, Stormy? EVANS: Not since the case has begun within court. And, honestly, I've made the choice to stay back and not attempt to interfere in any way while she's giving her time and her testimony. PHILLIP: What did you make of how she was on the stand today? did you think, based on what you've seen and heard, that it was a different demeanor than how she was a couple days ago. EVANS: I think today she was directly challenged by Trump's lawyer and again told that she made this all up. The comments about her being an actress in the adult film industry and being able to create stories about sex was a very crude remark against our profession. The two are very different things. Stormy is talking about something that happened to her and sharing details that are very explicit because it's the truth and being accused of lying yet again. It's just incredibly frustrating for her, I would imagine. PHILLIP: As someone who works in that adult film industry, did you view the questioning from the defense as an attempt to shame Stormy? EVANS: It definitely feels as if now the defense is being given their time to shame Stormy, to attempt to harass her. One of your commentators earlier just mentioned about how this was Trump's lawyer's opportunity to humiliate Stormy, and it really seemed as if that was their agenda today. They weren't getting anything out of her with those questions. It was just an attempt to shame her. PHILLIP: All right. Alana Evans, thank you very much for joining us. We appreciate you taking the time tonight. EVANS: Thank you. PHILLIP: And up next, one star witness off the stand, another one to go with Michael Cohen yet to testify. Where does the prosecution's case stand in Donald Trump's hush money trial? We'll discuss that with our panel. Stay with us. (COMMERCIAL BREAK) [22:25:00] PHILLIP: We are in Day 14 of the Donald Trump Hush money cover-up trial, and the prosecution has called 14 witnesses to the stand so far. But the question is, have they done enough to convince the jury that Trump falsified business records to cover up hush money payments to help his presidential campaign. And another big question, when will Michael Cohen, the alleged facilitator of this hush money payment, actually testify? But let's take a step back and take a deeper dive into where things stand. Our panel is back with us along with Stacy Schneider, an attorney as well, also someone who knows Donald Trump well, former contestant at on The Apprentice. What's the name of that show? STELTER: The Celebrity Apprentice. PHILLIP: So, Stacy -- NAVARRO: Pre-Celebrity Apprentice. PHILLIP: Pre-celebrities. So, we've heard from these 14 witnesses so far, how do you think the prosecution's case is progressing now that Stormy Daniels has wrapped up? And then, also importantly, it didn't end there. There were a couple of just fact -- quote/unquote, boring fact witnesses that came after that today. STACY SCHNEIDER, NEW YORK CITY CRIMINAL DEFENSE ATTORNEY: So, in my opinion, this is the Michael Cohen versus Donald Trump show. And that's where the D.A. is going to tie this entire case together, because Michael Cohen is going to be the witness who establishes the alleged deal or the scheme with Donald Trump. And so far, all these witnesses, including Stormy Daniels, her testimony wasn't that necessary to make the case. The person who, so far, has really made the case for the prosecution was Hope Hicks, when she revealed at the end of her testimony, that the following year, Donald Trump had come to her, in 2018 actually, and said he knew about the deal with Michael Cohen, because Donald Trump's whole, um Defense and his press statements are all trying to distance himself from having to do anything with this. I have to point something out that happened way at the beginning of the case that no one has really mentioned, which was Donald Trump foreshadowing exactly what he would say if he got on the stand. And he said it was about -- I think it was the day that David Pecker had begun his testimony. So, it was either Day 1 or Day 2. And he had come out and it was during one of those alleged gag order violations and he was making fun of Michael Cohen. And he said Michael Cohen is a terrible lawyer but Michael Cohen is a lawyer. And all that's happened here is Michael Cohen, a lawyer, submitted an invoice. They put it on the books. They, presumably, meaning his employees at the Trump Organization, and this is what they're indicting me for. They put it on the books. So, I think Donald Trump was basically signaling and he was frustrated that he had his -- he's listening to witnesses testify against him. [22:30:00] He wasn't quite used to the process yet that the prosecution goes first and he does not get to speak unless he chooses to take the stand. But he was kind of signaling like, I took away, I had nothing to do with this, they submitted a receipt to my business and I signed off on it. And the prosecution has done a really good job with these facts that don't seem that important right now about Trump's methodology in his business. I sign every check, right? BRIAN STELTER, SPECIAL CORRESPONDENT, "VANITY FAIR": You're reading from his books, using his own words against him. SCHNEIDER: Right. I sign every check. I check every invoice because I don't want to get ripped off, you know, and I'm an eye for an eye, a tooth for, I go after people who go after me. PHILLIP: And that's why Madeleine was such an important witness today. Even though she's a super sympathetic witness to Donald Trump, she really corroborated that main fact, which is that Donald Trump understands everything that's going on in his business, even when he was in the White House. He wanted to know everything, including the cost of the Tiffany picture frame that I presume he could afford, but may or may not have wanted to pay for while he was in the White House. ANA NAVARRO, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: He was signing off on $6,000 in fees to a country club that he wasn't going to use it for, I mean, when he's a billionaire. STELTER: When he's supposed to be one of the government. NAVARRO: Literally, you know, somebody asking me to sign off on a 31 cent check. STELTER: But that is what's so revealing about using, what you call the boring witnesses, using Trump's words against him. Looking today, for example, Trump said, I want to be able to speak out. I want to be able to respond to Stormy Daniels. I want to be free of this gag order. And in the judge's response, the judge said, well, we know what you've said in your books. You attack people for the good of your business. We know your techniques. And we're reading that from his own books against him. LEE ZELDIN (R), FORMER NEW YORK CONGRESSMAN; I was going to say, the point about Michael Cohen, he is the star witness. So to this prosecution, they are relying on Michael Cohen to establish so much about the elements of what they need to prove to make this case. And, you know, to have the Hope Hicks point or Madeleine point and some of the small things that we can talk about tonight, because we don't have Michael Cohen's testimony yet. I mean, really, it comes down to Michael Cohen to establish a lot of what is a difficult to prove crime, no matter who the prosecutor is. PHILLIP: What do you want to hear from Michael Cohen, Lee? ZELDIN: So if you're the prosecution, you're going to have to go element by element, and you're going to have to also be establishing intent. And you're going to have to go further, remember, to our conversation in the last block, not to rehash all of it here, about the pursuit of another crime, and then the cross-examination. The fact that Michael Cohen is a convicted perjurer is going to be something that is going to result in a hit on his credibility that if you're a juror listening to it, you might decide when the testimony is over, maybe they established this or that, I think, but maybe this star witness isn't somebody who I can believe because he's already been convicted. He's lost his law license. He went to prison because of what's happened in the past with him lying to others. So I think that there's, for the prosecution and the defense, it's something that when both sides get their turn at it, I mean, this is a big uphill battle. PHILLIP: Hold on, let me let Joey in. JOEY JACKSON, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: Okay, so let me say something very important. I think the fact that Michael Cohen is the star witness is going to make or break is a farce. Yet I said it, it's a farce. Here's why. The prosecution has done everything and anything to make him as irrelevant as possible. What do I mean? The witnesses that have testified have essentially corroborated everything he's going to say with respect to creating this entire deal, with regard to catch-and-kill, with regard to the impetus of why it was necessary following the "Access Hollywood", we don't need another bad story coming out, with respect to these invoices and ledgers and checks, with regard to Donald Trump signing it in a Sharpie, with regard to checks being sent to the White House and being sent back. What am I saying? Yes, people want to hear from Michael Cohen, but the prosecution has done everything they could with regard to establishing the elements of the crime through every other witness to eliminate and nullify the argument that he's a convicted felon, he lied before Congress, you can't trust him. You know what, ladies and gentlemen? You don't have to trust Michael Cohen, and here's why. Because Mr. Pecker got on the stand and he talked to you about catch- and-kill, because Hope Hicks got on the stand and she spoke about the issues with respect to what was happening in the campaign and why they'd want to kill the story. Because the bookkeeper talked to you about how he micromanages things, he signs these checks, etc. They're going to, that is the prosecution in closing argument, say don't believe the hype about Michael Cohen being a criminal, it doesn't matter, because everybody else corroborates him, so if he's lying, it doesn't matter. NAVARRO: Can I say something also that I haven't heard talked about? The two young women who worked for Trump, who have some loyalty towards him still, who are definitely sympathetic towards him, Hope Hicks and Madeleine, whose last name none of us can remember, ended up crying on the stand. [22:35:09] SCHNEIDER: Well, I can tell you why they were crying, because they know they're going to say something that's going to incriminate or make Donald Trump look bad, and that is a very scary thing. I was on his TV show, if you don't want to cross Donald Trump, it's frightening. NAVARRO: So I'm not in that courtroom, but that's my assumption of why they're crying. That these two women feel bad and are crying because they think that they are saying the truth, and in saying the truth, they're proving the prosecution's case and doing Donald Trump who they're sympathetic to harm. PHILLIP: It's such an underappreciated point. I think there's been a lot of focus about how well they present, how genuine they are about their love for Trump, but the tears, how the jury reads the tears, is going to be critically important. SCHNEIDER: I mean, I think they're tears of fear, but I want to get back to something Joey was saying. NAVARRO: Hope Hicks is no shrinking violet, right? She's no marshmallow. SCHNEIDER: But I have to say something about Michael Cohen. I don't agree with you, Joey, because I think we're underestimating the defense here, and there was some earlier testimony that Michael Cohen, when he was trying to negotiate these deals, I think even the Stormy Daniels deal with Keith Davidson, Stormy Daniels' attorney, and even David Pecker, at one point he said, I don't have authority to pay for these things. My boss is on the campaign trail, he's in different states, and I have to get back with you on the money. And there was sort of this implication that Trump didn't want to pay, so Michael Cohen was trying to delay after the election. But don't, you know, a possibility that the defense could come back and say, again, Donald Trump distancing himself from the alleged scheme with Michael Cohen, which is what the underlying crime is about. It's the act of Michael Cohen and Donald Trump, not the Karen McDougal story, it's the act of buying allegedly Stormy Daniels' story. So Michael Cohen, they can come back and say, Michael Cohen went rogue on this and did this on his own, and I don't have knowledge of that. I just signed the check, but I didn't know. JACKSON: Very quickly, but yet, there's a meeting with Michael Cohen and Donald Trump in the White House, and yet subsequent to that, there's a Sharpie pen where he has checks that he's reimbursing Michael Cohen on a deal he knows nothing about. SCHNEIDER: Yeah, but we need to hear from Michael Cohen about what happened in the meeting. PHILLIP: We will be back a little bit later in the show. Everyone, stand by from us. We're turning next to the fallout from President Biden's warning that he'll hold back on weapons for Israel over a Rafa invasion. Israel's prime minister is already responding. We'll discuss that next. (COMMERCIAL BREAK) [22:40:00] (COMMERCIAL BREAK) PHILLIP: Tonight, political shock waves happening here in the United States and also abroad after President Biden's comments in an exclusive CNN interview threatening to halt U.S. weapons to Israel if it moves forward with a major ground operation in Gaza's southernmost city of Rafah. Those comments sparked the wrath of Republicans over on Capitol Hill. Listen. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) SEN. TOM COTTON (R-AK): Joe Biden object -- objectively favors a Hamas victory over Israel. It's just that simple. SEN. JOHN THUNE (R-SD): This is an existential threat for the people of Israel. The United States needs to have their back. We'd have their back. The American people have their back. SEN. LINDSEY GRAHAM (R-SC): I just want to emphasize one thing. This is all about President Biden and Lloyd Austin trying to take over the war from Israel. I got one message for Israel. Don't let them do it. (END VIDEO CLIP) PHILLIP: Already, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is responding and he is striking a defiant tone. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) BENJAMIN NETANYAHU, ISRAELI PRIME MINISTER (through translator): If we need to stand alone, we will stand alone. I have said that if necessary, we will fight with our fingernails. (END VIDEO CLIP) PHILLIP: Joining me now is former lieutenant governor for the state of New York, Betsy McCaughey, also with us Democratic New York State Representative Zohran Mamdani. Zohran, I want to start with you because I know that you are in tune with where the left is on this issue. President Trump weighed in on Truth Social saying taking the side of these terrorists like he has sided with the radical mobs taking over the college campuses is what he is saying Joe Biden is doing. But how is actually this being seen by the people who have been pushing for President Biden to do something? REP. ZOHRAN MAMDANI (D-NY): This is being seen as the president taking a step towards what most Americans want. We see in poll after poll that a majority of Americans want to see an immediate ceasefire. And this conditioning military shipments to Israel is one step towards it. However, what Americans want to see is the president go all the way in honoring his previous pledge because the Israeli military for all intents and purposes is already invading Rafah. We have every major aid organization on the ground saying Israeli military tanks are circling hospitals. They have killed 60 Palestinians in the last 24 hours. 80,000 have been displaced just since Monday. PHILLIP: By the way, just before I let you in, Betsy, the fact that President Biden made this threat and it has not actually changed the reality on the ground, doesn't that undercut this idea that he can just snap his fingers and stop the fighting? MAMDANI: You know, I don't think it does because he's paused one single shipment and put two others out under. PHILLIP: Yeah, but Israel has said they don't need any more shipments to do what they want to do in Israel -- in Gaza. MAMDANI: Well, I would believe that when we stop sending the multi thousand pound bombs that they can drop to kill Palestinians. [22:44:57] PHILLIP: So, Betsy, at the end of the day, this is within President Biden's right to do. He's not the first president to condition aid specific arms shipments to Israel. Back in 1981 and 1982, Ronald Reagan did it twice. BETSY MCCAUGHEY (R), FORMER NEW YORK LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR: That's right. It is within his powers as commander in chief. So, those in Washington who are talking about impeachment, I would say, put that aside. We don't need any more impeachments. But the fact is that first, let me point out that the latest Harvard- Harris poll shows that 80 percent of Americans, 80 percent, a large majority on any issue, but particularly on this one, 80 percent of Americans do not want a ceasefire until Hamas surrenders the hostages and lays down its arms. That's what the poll says. This is a betrayal of Israel, a stab in the back, and also to the hostages and their families, including five American hostages. It emboldens Hamas at the negotiating table, the bargaining table to get those hostages back, and it also emboldens them on the battlefield. MAMDANI: But let me just say it's the hostage families themselves who have the slogan everyone for everyone. They have called for the release of all the hostages in line with the release of Palestinian prisoners as well as those unjustly detained. It is Benjamin Netanyahu who has refused that deal, and the former spokesperson of the hostage families said that this deal was on the table before the invasion of Gaza. MCCAUGHEY: Some of the hostages, but I wanted to make it clear that the American people are not in favor of a surrender to Hamas or a ceasefire until the hostages are returned and Hamas is eradicated from Rafah. There are still three military battalions of Hamas in Rafah, and until they're destroyed, Hamas can wage another attack. Let me remind everyone watching why the fighting is going on, because on October 7th, Hamas broke the ceasefire. They came in, they put babies in ovens, they had gang rapes for women, they brutalized people, they rolled them up in barbed wire and set them on fire. When you talk about standards of war, there has been no atrocity this great since the Holocaust. PHILLIP: Lieutenant Governor, obviously the atrocities that occurred on October 7th are critically important, but you said something that I think was also important. Three battalions left in Rafah. I'm not understanding the argument that somehow not going into a city with 1.3 million people, mostly civilians, is suddenly going to embolden this tiny remnant of Hamas. MCCAUGHEY: It's not a tiny remnant. Three battalions is not a remnant. They have fighting power, and they are trying to rebuild their fighting power. Let's just take a pause and ask ourselves what war is. Because we're imposing on Israel a standard of warfare that has never existed. Just wait one second, Zohran. During World War II, when the United States and Britain were fighting Germany, fighting Hitler, right, and they wanted to end the war and free the camps, they bombed Dresden. Did they evacuate Dresden first? No. PHILLIP: Go ahead, I'll let you. MAMDANI: I'm sorry. The idea of advocating for another Dresden is unfathomable to most people in this country. That is the reason why we have international law and the idea of what war crimes are. We have seen more than 14,000 Palestinian children be killed in the last few months. MCCAUGHEY: And I regret that. MAMDANI: But you're advocating for more of it effectively. MCCAUGHEY: No, I'm not advocating for more of it. We must finish this war off in a strong way. And if we do not eradicate Hamas within that population, go in and get them out and finish this, it will go on and on and on. They will invade Israel again. They've already said they will do it at every opportunity. PHILLIP: Lieutenant Governor, the condition that the Biden administration set was that Israel needs to have a credible plan to keep the civilians safe. And the reason they oppose a Rafah invasion is because that plan doesn't exist. So why isn't it in Biden's interest to ensure that that happens before a major military operation occurs? MCCAUGHEY: Because he's weakening Israel tremendously. All the countries around that area of the world are watching, and they see, oh, the United States does not have Israel's back now. Israel cannot be guaranteed the ammunition it needs. That's a message to Iran. That's a message to every enemy of Israel. And by the way, every country in the world that is depending on its alliance with America is taking this lesson, second time, when the United States snuck out of Afghanistan in the middle of the night without telling its allies, and now this. MAMDANI: I'm a little bit confused because the last time we were on the show, you spoke about the importance of law and order. MCCAUGHEY: We like being on together, by the way. MAMDANI: We like being on together. But the last time you were on the show, you spoke about the importance of law and order. MCCAUGHEY: Yes, of course. MAMDANI: And President Biden has now come out and said that the Israeli military is using American weapons to kill Palestinian civilians, which is against the law of this country. [22:50:03] So on one hand, you're telling students to follow the law. And on the other hand, you're asking the United States government to break it. And I don't understand why. MCCAUGHEY: It's not against the law. I read that clause. Yes, it says that ammunition cannot be provided to allies or other countries when the intent is to kill civilians. But the intent here is not. I don't think most people realize that Israel has set up health care tents, food tents all along the evacuation route. The reason there are still so many people in Rafah is Hamas won't let them leave. It's using them as human shields. PHILLIP: No, the reason there are so many people in Rafah is because the Israeli government told them to go there, Lieutenant Governor. MCCAUGHEY: But now they have created a route out and health care tents and food tents. Take a look at the pictures. I've never seen a war before where -- where the adversary is providing food tents and health care tents for the people fighting. These are civilians that we are taught. PHILLIP: Well, these are civilians we are talking about. I want to emphasize that. MCCAUGHEY: That's true. PHILLIP: The Israeli government is fighting Hamas. We are talking about the civilian population. And that is what has made this whole debate as tricky as it has been. I appreciate the two of you coming on having a civil conversation and we are the friendship between the two of you. I do appreciate that. We need -- we need a lot more of that on this topic. Betsy McCaughey and Zohran Mamdani, thank you both very much. And up next, the president's gatekeeper in the Oval Office, Madeleine Westerhout, will return to the stand tomorrow. I'm going to what we can expect from her with my panel that's ahead. (COMMERCIAL BREAK) [22:55:00] (COMMERCIAL BREAK) PHILLIP: Donald Trump's hush money trial resumes tomorrow morning. So what should we expect to happen in that courtroom next? Ana Navarro and Brian Stelter are back with us. Madeleine Westerhout is going to go back to the stand. She is a really important witness, but a super sympathetic one to Donald Trump. I was talking to one of the reporters who was in the courtroom who's been following this all along, and he says we haven't gotten to the sort of the heart of what her testimony is going to be. And we might get there tomorrow. STELTER: If Stormy was the emotional climax, there is still a lot that we need to learn. The details about using the Sharpie pen, about his -- his attention to detail, all of that is going to matter a lot to the jury. PHILLIP: And what about Ana, Michael Cohen? I think you both sort of know him to a degree. STELTER: Oh, yeah. We've both been bullied by him, I think. NAVARRO: Actually, we probably he did at one point. I had forgotten that part. STELTER: We've forgotten a lot. PHILLIP: I wonder about Michael Cohen and how prosecutors need to handle him on the defense stand, on the witness stand, because that's going to be really critical. They had some missteps with Stormy, for sure. Are they going to be able to control their witness this time around? NAVARRO: You know, I think Michael Cohen does remorse very well. He's had a lot of practice now being remorseful about the things that he did with and for Donald Trump. He's done it in Congress. He's done it in court. He's served time. There's nothing like jail to affect people's emotions and demeanor. I suspect that Michael Cohen will be under control. I think he will control himself. STELTER: I feel like it's going to be the liar Olympics, though, meaning Cohen, a known liar, Donald Trump, a known liar. It's going to be chaos in some ways. I remember the last time I talked to Cohen, I was on his podcast. He told me if Trump wins re-election, he swears on a Bible he was going to move to Canada. That's the kind of guy Cohen is, right? He's got a short fuse. He'll say anything. NAVARRO: Oh, Brian, if everybody who promised to move to Canada, by the way, the new in spot is Portugal, was accused of lying, we'd have a very long list. STELTER: Portugal sounds great, but I think Cohen has a very, very short fuse. NAVARRO: But what happened today with Stormy Daniels, and I think it could also happen with Michael Cohen, they went after her, Donald Trump's attorney went after her for being a grifter, which is actually exactly what he is, right? Oh, you're selling candles. Well, what hasn't he sold trying to make money? Steaks, vodka, mug shots, NFTs. You name Bibles, for God's sakes, he's out there selling it. And so, oftentimes, when you're dealing with these people, and you're trying to accuse the witness of being X, Y, or Z, it's a lot of self- reflection on what your actual client, Donald Trump, is. I think that's the same thing that happens with Michael Cohen. PHILLIP: Trump is also chomping at the bit to get at these witnesses. His attorneys went to the judge today and said, let him out of his gag order so that he can talk about Stormy Daniels. And Stormy Daniels comes out of today's testimony and basically pokes him in the kidneys, essentially. Michael Cohen also, who had tried to back off talking about Trump, also talking about this case again. At some point, do you think Trump just, the lid just comes off? STELTER: That he just erupts, you mean? PHILLIP: Yeah. STELTER: I think that idea of jail time is actually scary to him, actually a fearful thing. I think at ground level, we're talking a lot about womanhood, Stormy Daniels, what was she thinking? This is about manhood. It's about what it means to be a man. Who was Donald Trump trying to be? And who is he trying to be now? And how does he want to behave now? [23:00:02] We know how he behaved in 2006, according to Stormy Daniels. How's he going to behave in the next couple of weeks? Is he going to testify? Is he going to speak on his own behalf? NAVARRO: This is not about manhood. This is about criminal activity. STELTON: I don't think the audience cares as much about the business record. Unless you're getting paid to follow this trial, most Americans are not. PHILLIP: This is at the end of the day, this will be about whatever the jury thinks about all of that. Everyone, thank you so much. And thank you for watching a special edition of "Newsnight" on Trump's hush money trial. Our coverage continues with a special edition of "Laura Coates Live", next. Laura Coates Live Aired May 09, 2024 - 23:00 ET THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED. [23:00:00] … LAURA COATES, CNN HOST: Stormy Daniels fights back against attempts to shame her and her career, another Trump insider tearing up on the stand, and the judge rebukes Donald Trump's lawyers. Welcome to a special edition of "Laura Coates Live." So, we knew all this was going to be coming out, right? But we didn't actually know it would be this explosive for this amount of time. Trump's team attempting a full-on assault on Stormy Daniels's credibility on now day 14 of this hush money trial. Defense Attorney Susan Necheles, who was the one grilling Daniels for hours, trying to paint her as being only in it for the money, trying to make it appear as if she had a huge vendetta against Trump, trying to make her appear very unstable, and trying to tarnish her work as an adult film actress and director. And through it all, Stormy wasn't having it. She was defiant throughout. She stood her ground and defended her character in spite of the oncoming assault. And in one of the more combative exchanges, Necheles going after Daniels about whether she made up everything about Trump. Necheles asking, "So you have a lot of experience in making phony stories about sex appear real, right? Daniels responded, "Wow. I'm a -- that's not how I would put it. The sex in the films, it's very much real. Just like what happened to me in that room." Look, we knew that Trump's team wanted to appear aggressive in going after Daniels, but here's the thing I've been thinking about: What if their strategy actually helps the prosecution's case? I mean, if the defense wants the jury to believe, and they do, that this woman is all about the money, she only cared about that and her bottom line, that she was, you know, ruthless and shrewd and had every intention of making sure the story got out there somehow, some way, at cost to anyone but herself, well, isn't that exactly what central casting would look like for the person that you'd want to pay off to keep quiet? Tonight, we will dig into how that could play into the jury's thinking. And speaking of intense testimony, we also heard from a Trump insider who worked in the White House, just outside the Oval Office, by the way. And her name, Madeleine Westerhout. And the prosecution is using her to try to connect the dots of what this case is really about. For those of you who forgot, with all the details that have been coming in, it's about falsified business records and the 34 counts of it, the scheme all to try to keep Stormy Angles quiet and hide it, according to prosecutors, from the transparency of an election. And her testimony, by the way, it did lay some of the groundwork for trying to bridge that gap and connect the dots. But she also showed that she wasn't there to tear down the former president. Even crying, she described her White House departure. And the days of crying and shouting back and forth of witnesses, that wasn't enough. The judge, well, he scolded the defense again after the jury left. He rejected two motions brought by Trump's team. One was a modified gag order so that Trump could now talk publicly about somebody who was no longer a prospective or future witness but a past witness, Stormy Daniels, and get another move for a mistrial based on what they thought was the unlawful and wide scope of questioning that came in about the details of the alleged sexual encounter and beyond. A lot to unpack, and we've just got the right group to do all of it. We've got CNN senior crime and justice reporter Katelyn Polantz, CNN opinion contributor and former House GOP investigative committee counsel, Sophia Nelson, former Trump attorney Jim Trusty, CNN political commentator Karen Finney, and former Republican Congressman Joe Walsh. All of you have to have shorter titles because my mouth is -- (LAUGHTER) -- like they're all here. They're all here. The gang is here. UNKNOWN: And we're out of time. COATES: Thank you for coming. So great to have you. I'll start with you, Jim. You're like the best one-liner to tell me about this. So, first of all, they needed to try to discredit Stormy Daniels. That's the whole point of the cross. But a really effective cross is one where you just get yes and no responses. Stormy, she was talkative, she was defiant, at times combative. [23:05:00] Why did they spend so much time with someone who technically, according to the falsified documents themselves, is irrelevant? JIM TRUSTY, FORMER TRUMP ATTORNEY: Right. I mean, the relationship is irrelevant. The fact that there was an NDA is not disputed. I think there was a shift of strategy that's not great. I mean, I've preached from the beginning, if you're on the defense side of this, your entire strategy is making a referendum on Michael Cohen. The entire case rises or falls on his credibility. That's the perfect battlefield. I mean, you can cross-examine him for seven or eight months and still be getting good points. So -- COATES: But please, don't do that. TRUSTY: No, no, no. You know, we're going to be done by 2025. (LAUGHTER) But, look, he's a target-rich environment. It's going to be a lot of fun to cross-examine him. But you want the jury to be thinking the only way we convict is if we believe this guy. And I have to say, from the other witnesses, not Stormy, it does seem to be gravitating towards he's the guy that could supposedly deliver this kind of cryptic theory of what's going on with the ledger and the check entries. So, I think what happened is they started off kind of disciplined, then they had the ability to regroup over time, and they're talking to the client as well and they're thinking -- COATES: Not just any client. A client who probably has a lot to say. TRUSTY: Fairly-opinionated client. COATES: Yes. TRUSTY: But they're looking at it and they're saying, boy, she got in a bunch of gratuitous stuff. The original discipline was, let's not object too much, let's not make it look like she's hurting us. Well, that let her get into all these insane, vivid details that hurt. So, they come back after the break and they go, we got to go strong after her. And so, you know, this has played out with the mistrial motion as well, that strategy of kind of taking it on the chin but acting like it doesn't hurt, and then trying to come back and essentially opening doors with their cross-examination for a harmful redirect. So, kind of spiraled into a different case for a few hours with this cross- examination. I don't think that was particularly helpful. But I will say, she's also a fairly target-rich environment. I mean, when you have somebody on the stand talking about how she has been talking to dead people and getting paid for that, there's going to be some New York jurors that are like, this Ouija board crap is -- well, they might not say crap, but this Ouija board stuff is really getting kind of silly and crazy, I can't trust this woman. The problem, again, for the defense, they spent too much time dignifying her as a witness for a case that's about paper entries. COATES: I mean, I happen to have loved "Sixth Sense." It was a hell of a movie. TRUSTY: Yeah, it was. I see dead people. SOPHIA NELSON, CNN OPINION CONTRIBUTOR: But you know why that happened, right? Trump went into the room and went crazy on his lawyers and said, you go after her and you deal with her, and that's exactly what happened. And that's why you had all this focus on Stormy Daniels, to your point, when you shouldn't have. And I think they hurt themselves, actually, the defense did. I think it'll be interesting to see what they do to Cohen. But I think she hurt them. COATES: I mean, look, it was the way that they went after her. And I got to tell you, I -- and maybe it's because I have been a sex prosecutor before, Karen. KAREN FINNEY, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: Yeah. COATES: And one of the tactics people often will use is they, in their defense, will try to do and say anything to try to suggest that somehow, the person who is stating that there has been a sexual encounter -- again, this is not someone who has claimed sexual assault -- FINNEY: Right. COATES: -- or rape. She has said that this is consensual. She has repeated it over and over in the crossing, that she's not a victim. But they were intent on trying to talk about the number of sexual porn that she had done to get to the partner count. They were trying to have the jurors be disgusted by her. FINNEY: Yes. COATES: And I got to tell you, jurors, they're not prudes. And I don't know that they actually think to themselves, I have to think you're disgusting to believe you. FINNEY: Well, also, it was a time-tested tactic, right, of attacking a woman for having sex, for having what some might think is too much sex or rough sex or getting paid for sex or, you know, all of it. I mean, they were trying to make it all very unseemly to go after her credibility. But I kept thinking, you all could have avoided this whole thing if you just would have stipulated to the fact that they had sex. We would not have had to hear any of it. But Trump won't do that, right? Fundamentally, he says, it never happened. And so, that is why we've had two days of testimony from Stormy Daniels. And you're right. I mean, it's -- you know, who knows how the jurors took it? One thing that struck me was just from the tone and tenor of how the defense attorneys were questioning Stormy Daniels versus Hope Hicks versus, right, for some of the women on the jury, they might have not recognized that. So, you're going to bully this woman and you're going to coddle these other women. Now, I understand -- COATES: Some of whom, by the way, were the same age now or when they started, perhaps, as she was when she had this alleged encounter. FINNEY: Correct. COATES: And to that point, Katelyn, I want to hear from you because I am constantly wondering when there are two jurors you've got to please, right, you've got to please the 18 that are in the room and convince them. There's going to be 12, ultimately, who will decide the case. You've got the larger court of public opinion and the electorate. [23:09:54] What's more important to the Trump campaign, trying to prove that he did not have sexual relations with this person or -- oh, that was a Clinton thing -- FINNEY: Hey, I was there. COATES: -- or -- or -- or was it that this is a weaponized government? KATELYN POLANTZ, CNN SENIOR CRIME AND JUSTICE REPORTER: Well, Judge Merchan actually addressed this with just the lawyers at the end, after the jury leaves, and says to them, I don't know why you guys weren't objecting more whenever these facts were first coming out. Not only were you not objecting as these details are coming out into the record from Stormy Daniels, the stuff that's making Donald Trump embarrassed as a candidate. His lawyers are saying that to the judge, he's embarrassed as a candidate. He wants to be able to publicly talk more to refute her story. And they didn't. And they reminded the jurors today during the cross of all of these details, and the judge said, you know, there were other ways that you could have done this, and you didn't. Your approach was one that is not working here legally for you to claim a mistrial at this point. COATES: Talk to me about her. I mean, Stormy, by the way, is no shrinking violet, as we've seen. And at one point, they'd asked for the gag order not to apply to people like her. She doesn't need protection, was part of their argument. Michael Cohen as well. She has been tweeting tonight, and she has been trying to provoke. POLANTZ: Yeah, she gets off of the stand, six hours of testimony over two days, and tweets. Real men respond to testimony by being sworn in and taking the stand in court, obviously taking a shot at Donald Trump there. COATES: Who is she talking about, Joe? JOE WALSH, PODCAST HOST, FORMER ILLINOIS REPRESENTATIVE: But see, Laura, that's why I think this just all politically helps Trump. Stormy has nothing to do with the crime. You're right that Trump probably said, go after her, but in a weird way, if he can make this about Stormy, and it's just a weird, yucky fling that he had, politically, his supporters think this doesn't matter. And if she's out there tweeting -- POLANTZ: Is this about what's happening in the courtroom or is this about what's happening in the discussion afterwards, outside the courtroom? He wants to be able to counter her message -- WALSH: Right. POLANTZ: -- that's being shared about the reporting on what's happening, what she's saying in the courtroom publicly -- WALSH: You're right. POLANTZ: -- and the judge is saying, no. And that's what she says, too. Do it in the courtroom. Put the facts there. If there needs to be a counter to what she's saying, the place to do that is not in the public -- WALSH: Right. NELSON: He's not going on your oath, though, because he knows that's a whole big problem for him. So, no lawyer -- am I right? -- is going to let him on the stand. Am I wrong about that? TRUSTY: Well, look, there has obviously been pretrial rulings that would affect him dramatically in terms of testifying. The judge -- COATES: He could be crossed in a lot of different things. TRUSTY: Somehow, E. Jean Carroll is relevant to this case. There are all sorts of stuff they'd cross-examine on. But the reality, I think, is just more straight tactical decision. You want to make it all about Michael Cohen, period. Anything else is a distraction. President Trump being on the stand, telling his story, it's a distraction. And the reason why they appear inconsistent with these other witnesses is they're getting friendly crosses, they're getting concessions without raising their voice. That is by far the best tactic here for all of these witnesses that are controllers, that are Hope Hicks- types. They're upset. They're throwing stuff out that helps or hurts both sides a little bit. But ultimately, don't turn it into a battle where you look like they're hurting you. And I think that this -- I think, you know, go back to the gag order for a second. The gag order has become simply a measure of ego at this point. The jury is sequestered. They're told, hopefully, don't pay attention to any media. COATES: Well, sequestered not in the literal sense. And they're told not to be able to look at media. They're not in a hotel by themselves. TRUSTY: Right, right, right. I mean, I always wonder when the judge says, don't pay attention to the media if they're not all getting on their phones on the ride home. But look, the reality is, you know, they're being told, don't pay attention to anything happening about this courtroom, just pay attention to what happens in the courtroom. So, Donald Trump saying anything from A to Z that's not criminal on its face is not affecting the jury. POLANTZ: They are trying to protect witnesses. That's the other piece. It's not just them. COATES: Well, here's the thing. I mean -- TRUSTY: Well, it's hard to be sympathetic when Cohen and Stormy now are taunting from the freedom of their speech while -- COATES: Well, Cohen said, though -- TRUSTY: -- somebody who's on trial has to say -- COATES: Remember, Cohen has said -- WALSH: It's a political hammer for Trump. COATES: Cohen has said in the past that he's going to stop now. The problem is for both Stormy and Michael is that they have said a lot for years. And they are -- you talked about rich targets in the sense of being able to cross on them. Everyone, stand by. We have a lot more to talk about, don't you worry, especially what was the indictment candle. Oh, I'm bringing that up and all the merchandise, too. I want to bring in someone who has been in court all week, Aysha Bagchi. She's a Justice Department correspondent for "USA Today" and also a lawyer. Asha, thank you so much for being here. I have a lot of questions. And one of them, let me just get right to the point, I want to know, what was the jury's body language and reaction to the discussion and the cross-examination by Necheles against Stormy Daniels? How were they responding? AYSHA BAGCHI, JUSTICE DEPARTMENT CORRESPONDENT, THE USA TODAY: The jurors were really attentive. They have been attentive throughout this trial. But they have not been showing their hand. It is not as if they're really telling people in the audience what they're thinking about what's happening. [23:15:01] You can see the kind of thing that lawyers often talk about wanting to see in a jury, where people are turning their heads left and right. They're following where people are testifying. If it's the witness testifying, that's where their eyes are. If it's a lawyer asking questions, their eyes turn there. So, you can really see that they're paying attention, they're taking lots of notes, but it is not as if they're showing what they're thinking. It was a really tough cross-examination from Susan Necheles today. But the jurors weren't really tipping their hats about what they think. It's just really clear that they're paying close attention. COATES: Show me and describe the tone that Stormy Daniels had in reaction to the relentless questions from Necheles, where she was trying to suggest a lot about the work that she had done, the number of sex partners she'd had in her films. It appeared from just reading the transcript that Daniels would not be moved and was unbothered. But at the same time, she was defiant. What was that exchange like? Who had the upper hand? BAGCHI: Yes, I mean, Stormy Daniels is clearly no shrinking violet. If anything, she kind of came more into her own when she was under cross- examination. You could see that she was ready to fight back. That's actually a point that Susan Necheles made today. She showed that when Stormy Daniels has been harassed by people online who might be Trump supporters, Stormy Daniels has responded. So, we saw that on the witness stand, too, when Susan Necheles was going after her, challenging sometimes really tiny details that Necheles said were inconsistent between stories that Daniels has told. Daniels was ready to shoot back. You know what? Does it matter? You know, what really is the difference between these two stories? If one time I said that Trump's bodyguard came up to me and said, Mr. Trump would like to have dinner with you, and another time I said, Trump did it, but the bodyguard is sort of Trump's agent, is that really a difference in the stories? My story has not changed. There was a time when Necheles really went after the fact that Stormy Daniels is an adult film star and basically said, you make up things for money. And Daniels responded, what's happening in my movies is very real, and so is what happened between me and Mr. Trump. So, she had no problem handling a tough cross-examination. COATES: I mean, also, I still stick to my same thought about that. The idea of, if you want to paint her as somebody who is money-hungry, shrewd, and with no principles, that's who you want to pay off if you want to have their story be quiet. The allegation alone, that, to me, rings credible, that you would be motivated in that way, whether you agree with whether her allegation is true or not. But then there was this moment, too, where both Trump and Daniels are making money from merchandise. And he's got a mugshot. I mean, look at the screen. We're showing the Trump merchandise. You know, he's got the golden sneakers. He's got bibles. She's selling a candle, comic books, T-shirts. I wonder how that landed with the jurors, given this idea that it was the pot and the kettle arguing over who's black? BAGCHI: Yes, I mean, you definitely saw people, two people who are motivated by money. I mean, Daniels really did try to push back against some of that storyline from Susan Necheles. She really said, when it came to 2016, right before the presidential election, she wanted to tell her story, that was more important to her than money. And then even when she took the hush money deal, what she felt good about is that it created a paper trail. It was a type of document, documentation, that I had this story to tell. So, she felt like she had some protection, and she said she had security concerns. But definitely, there was a lot of testimony and a lot of evidence that showed that Stormy Daniels cares about making money and has been successful. Today, we heard testimony about Daniels tweeting that she made $1 million, a lot of it from her book, which discussed the Trump history, some from a reality TV show. But she doesn't shrink when she's cross-examined about those things. Today, when we saw the candle that's on sale on the website touting Trump's indictments, Susan Necheles said, you get $40 for each candle, don't you? And Stormy said, actually, about $7. So, she always had an answer and a comeback. You can definitely see they're both people who think about businesses and think about money. That's true. But I'm not sure that that'll be the most important thing in drilling down on what jurors think of this story because she owned it. We'll have to see. But it may come down to the real details in her story and whether she comes across as being candid and honest. COATES: Aysha Bagchi, thank you so much. You know, it really does come down to testimony. Let me remind people. This is about documents. Right? This is not a trial within a trial as to whether or not this sexual encounter happened. It's whether there was the allegation that was sought to be suppressed and falsified business records as a result for the purpose of trying to avoid having the campaign impacted. They've got to bridge all those. And next, today's other big testimony that got to the heart of what I'm just talking about, the business records. [23:20:00] What a former Trump aide said about a key meeting between Trump and Michael Cohen -- there's his name again -- at the White House. Plus, a reporter who spoke with Stormy Daniels and saw her nondisclosure agreement before her story went public. And his name came up in court today. I'm going to talk to him about it. (COMMERCIAL BREAK) COATES: Now, while we've heard plenty of, well, let's just call it tawdry testimony this week in Donald Trump's hush money case, this is really a case about documents and, of course, about money. Now, in order to secure a conviction, prosecutors have to play a game of connect the dots to establish Trump orchestrated the plan to falsify business records, to cover up the payment from Michael Cohen to Stormy Daniels. Why? To help his campaign. That's a very important part. Now, prosecutors hope that today's testimony from former Trump aide, Madeleine Westerhout, helped jurors piece that puzzle together. CNN's Katelyn Polantz at the magic wall with the key points from today and how prosecutors could be setting the stage for Cohen to take the stand. Katelyn, did the testimony move the needle at all? [23:25:00] POLANTZ: Laura, if it didn't move the needle, it at least added a piece to the puzzle. So, the main thing, at the end of the day, that we saw after Stormy Daniels finished her testimony is the testimony of two additional people who were working for Donald Trump. This is -- these are all of the witnesses that have been on the stand over the past couple weeks that are the chain of people who all were able to see the paper trail. And they were able to bring that into evidence. They were able to talk about things like invoices and checks that Donald Trump was personally looking at signing, signing off on, so that he could pay Michael Cohen to reimburse for this hush money. But this -- one of these people, Madeleine Westerhout, she was the person sitting outside of the West Wing, and she was able to testify to who was in Trump's frequent contacts. First and foremost, Michael Cohen, pretty important guy there in this trial. There are other people here, but she's helping to establish the connection directly between Donald Trump and Michael Cohen. There's also, of course, TV hosts on here, professional athletes, some other important people in the mix of Donald Trump's world, some family members. But Michael Cohen is super important, having him on that list. And then ultimately, Madeline Westerhout, she was also able to testify, Laura, about a meeting on February 5th, 2017. She is the person that sent the email to Michael Cohen to get all of the important details that he needed to provide to the White House so he could get in the building. Prosecutors are pointing to this meeting because they want to allege this is the meeting where the arrangements were made for this hush money scheme for Donald Trump to ultimately give Michael Cohen his $130,000, plus much more, to keep Stormy Daniels quiet. COATES: Katelyn, thank you so much. I think there are a lot of people watching who are rewinding their show right now with the panel, trying to see that list of people who were on there. They're seeing Serena, they're seeing Tom Brady. I got some questions about that. Jim, first of all, why do you think they're bringing up all the contacts? What is that? Obviously, the jury knows by now they know Michael Cohen. They know they know David Pecker. We know this. The jury is going to be aware of this. Why is that contact list important? TRUSTY: It's not -- (LAUGHTER) -- is the bottom line. And look, you know, I think that they've played as hard as they can play with the notion that people in a position to know about bookkeeping don't have a whole lot to say in this case. I mean, you know, we're not going to hear from Allen Weisselberg. COATES: Weisselberg, yup. TRUSTY: You know, if Weisselberg is not a witness, which I assume he's not because he was treated like a failed cooperator by the government -- COATES: He's in jail right now as well. TRUSTY: Right. I mean, still show up from jail. COATES: Show up. TRUSTY: But, you know, I think it's almost a principle of exhaustion. Let's have everybody that can say something about how payments are done and who has a voice in that process. But at the end of the day, you're talking about entries that say, for legal services, and supposedly that's a felony, but for legal services, NDA wouldn't be. That's a crazy thin line for criminality, and none of these people are really budging that issue. To me, it's going to come down to how the judge instructs on the motivation that's required for fraud. And then even if it's a mixed motivation where it only requires some element to be the politics, which is pretty easy to establish here -- COATES: It's got to be substantial. TRUSTY: Yeah. I mean, whatever the -- whatever that gray area is of substantial, you know, if they can't connect Trump to the entries in any plausible way, which they really haven't done so far, then it means it's Cohen. And Cohen is the right battlefield. COATES: Does it matter, do you think? I mean, for Trump, he knows full well. He has already laid the foundation and planted the seed that this jury is not going to be fair. He has been slapped on the wrist for that as well, in terms of the gag order. If it comes down to documents, which normally are black and white, how is the political spin going to address that? WALSH: This is what it comes down to, and that's why I think the whole focus on Stormy Daniels and the other stuff helps Trump. This is a paper case. But to your point, Jim, it -- I mean, it gets really down into the weeds. And Laura, there's a tough -- sure, Trump did what he did to keep this away from the campaign, but that has to be a substantial motivation. That's a tough bar to clear. COATES: Except -- I mean -- I want to go to you, Karen, because, first of all -- in your past life as well -- (LAUGHTER) -- I mean, this is -- we'll talk about the timing of this. FINNEY: Yes. COATES: This is not like in a vacuum, right? FINNEY: Oh, yeah. COATES: You had this alleged sexual encounter happen in 2006. The payments, though, were made a few days after, I believe, the Access Hollywood tape came in -- FINNEY: Uh-hmm. COATES: -- which is a few days before the November election actually happened. FINNEY: Uh-hmm. COATES: Take us back to the idea of what was going on about the fallout because that's -- that's the key for them to talk about that substantial aspect, that it wasn't to protect his family, it was because he knew it impacted the campaign. [23:30:01] FINNEY: So, a couple of things. Access Hollywood tape comes out October 8th. And after a rough summer, that was a huge deal, right, because as we now know, right, at the RNC, they were trying to decide, can we replace him on the ticket? He was already having trouble with white suburban women which, as we've noted, continues to be an issue for him in success in campaigns. You know, that's why he hires Kellyanne Conway. They know that this is the kind of story that could do real damage. COATES: Uh-hmm. FINNEY: Then, you -- so they're trying to hold it back. October 28th, don't forget, Jim Comey comes out. Now, what saved Donald Trump when the Access Hollywood tape came out, it was Melania. A lot of folks don't remember. WALSH: Yeah. FINNEY: It was her coming out affirming that, yeah, it is just how boys talk, locker talk. That created a permission structure for women to say, okay, we can excuse that. If she says it's okay, then it's OK. So, then, as I say, cut to October 28th, we have Jim Comey come back out. And ironically, one of the arguments that Donald Trump was making at the time was that if Hillary Clinton was elected, there would be lawsuits, there would be, you know, we'd be dragging through the mud because of all of her baggage, cut to here we are tonight having this conversation. COATES: I mean -- NELSON: You know, Laura, I want to say that this is kind of deja vu. And Karen, you'll remember this with the Clinton impeachment matter and everything that happened. The public never got their arms around the fact that it was not about the sexual encounter with Monica Lewinsky. It was about perjury, which is why they were impeaching him. And everything happened. And I think that's the same issue you're raising here, which is that this is a very sophisticated, down in the weeds, nuanced thing you have to really understand to get to the criminality. And I don't think the public just thinks that deep. I think they see the porn star. WALSH: Yeah. NELSON: They see the salaciousness. They go, oh, this is a guy cheating in his marriage, Trump has been a playboy. I mean, I'm old enough to remember seeing the "Inquirer" magazines on the stand as a kid. Trump has been in our life for a really long time doing this kind of stuff. And I think that that's where there's a disconnect, Laura. I don't think the public -- they think it's about sex with the porn star versus what it's really about. COATES: And you know anything about that, too? Since there's no cameras in the courtroom and there's no audio, you don't know if you're not watching all day long in the coverage. You have no idea who is eliciting that testimony. When you hear that there are conversations about tweets and about missionary positions and who is wearing a condom and who's not, you think that that's the prosecution who is getting that testimony to come out of Stormy Daniels. And it doesn't -- you think, okay, well, they're trying to do this as opposed to how it's really coming in. It just fuels that same narrative. That's part of, I think, what's nearing the benefit of not having those cameras in the courtroom. Thank you, everyone, so much. Next, we have one of the first journalists to speak with Stormy Daniels about her story, and he was brought up in court today. So, the question that the prosecution and the defense want answered in the jurors' mind is, does her testimony line up with what she told him back in 2016? Jacob Weisberg is my guest when we come back. (COMMERCIAL BREAK) [23:35:00] (COMMERCIAL BREAK) COATES: The saga of Stormy Daniels did not start last year when the Manhattan D.A. decided to charge Donald Trump nor did it begin in 2016 when the alleged hush money deal was even created. It started in 2006 when she alleges she had an affair with Trump at a golf tournament in Lake Tahoe. Now, she says that she first did an interview about the encounter in 2011, but it was never published. Then in October of 2016, Michael Cohen struck a deal to buy her story in exchange for her silence. The price tag, we all know quite well by now, 130,000 bucks. Now, that deal didn't come to light until 2018, you know, when "The Wall Street Journal" revealed it. A few weeks later, then Trump attorney, Rudy Giuliani, confirmed it existed. But another reporter almost broke this story first. Joining me now is Jacob Weisberg, former reporter with "Slate" magazine, who spoke to Daniels about the alleged encounter and saw the nondisclosure agreement. Jacob, thank you so much for joining me. I'm really eager to hear your impression of all this, especially because your name was brought up in court today by the defense attorney, Susan Necheles. And here is the quote. "And do you recall that in 2016, that at the same time that your lawyer was negotiating with Michael Cohen over a nondisclosure agreement, you were also speaking with a reporter from "Slate" named Jacob Weisberg? Do you recall that?" Daniel responds -- quote -- "I recall talking to someone from "Slate." I'm not sure the name." Now, Stormy actually called you her back-up in court. Tell me about the conversation that took place. JACOB WEISBERG, CO-FOUNDER AND EXECUTIVE CHAIR OF PUSHKIN INDUSTRIES, FORMER REPORTER FOR SLATE: Yes, well, I actually found my way to her rather than the other way around, and it was earlier than October. It was soon after the Republican convention in 2016. And I was trying to convince her to go public with the story, to give it to me in a form I could use it. And she wanted money for the story. And I explained to her that "Slate" and other credible news organizations like CNN, like ABC, don't pay for stories. She had more experience in kind of a tabloid world in which they do. And she felt the story had value, and she wanted to be paid for it. I think she was kind of indifferent whether she got paid for selling the story or for making the story go away as she did. COATES: That's interesting because her motivation has been questioned a great deal as to whether she was in fear for her life, wanted the NDA to -- I think the phrase she used was to hide in plain sight, that it would give her some protection or that -- look, at the end of the day, she wanted the money. [23:40:05] But, you, in your interaction with her, she just wanted the money or the story to get out? WEISBERG: Oh, I think she was much more interested in the money. If she'd wanted the story to get out, she would have let me use it and it would have come out or she would have given it to another news organization. But I would say that hearing her testimony on Tuesday and again today, the facts have been entirely consistent. COATES: Really? WEISBERG: The story she told me eight years ago, wouldn't let me use, was the same story, same details. She spanked him with a rolled-up copy of "Forbes" magazine. I remember all the little bits. What has changed, I think, is her feelings about that encounter and how she -- the kind of emotional content of the experience. When she told me about it back then, she was very dismissive of it. It was no big deal. Trump was ridiculous. She didn't believe anything he said. He said he was going to buy her a condo in Florida, put her on "The Apprentice." She wasn't buying any of it. She kind of hoped it might happen, but she didn't believe it. Now, the way she describes that is something almost closer to date rape. She doesn't use those terms. She doesn't say it was coercive, but she said on the stand that she kind of blacked out while they were having sex. She felt bullied, that there was a kind of power imbalance. Again, same facts, different feelings. COATES: And she does talk about that she was challenged on that very point because she says in interviews in the past, she's not a victim. She reiterated on the stand that it was not -- she was not physically or threatened or harmed in any way and describes that is consensual. At the same time, as you mentioned, it got the defense counsel on their feet that that was insinuation, that it was something different than that. Did that shift for the emotional feelings surrounding the event? Did that strike you as odd or make her less credible to you? WEISBERG: Not at all. I mean, she used exactly the same language with me, that she wasn't a victim. And if you want a point of comparison, think about Monica Lewinsky, who came to feel very differently about her sexual encounter with Bill Clinton based on what she came to understand about the power imbalance. And so, you can have the same story, but a different relationship to that story, different feelings about the story. COATES: You actually saw the NDA with Cohen and asked -- she asked you what she should do about it. Do you remember that moment? WEISBERG: Well, she didn't exactly ask me what to do about it. I mean, she was trying to figure out what to do about it. It wasn't signed. She explained to me about these pseudonym, David Dennison. There was another document which she hadn't seen and which I didn't see, which explained the key that this was her and Donald Trump. And she had this lawyer, Keith Davidson, who was negotiating this. And the reason she started talking to me again after a gap in October was she thought Trump, having made this agreement through Michael Cohen, wasn't going to pay up. And she understood enough about him to know that he often makes deals and then reneges on them. And she thought after the election, he wouldn't have the interest in paying the money, and she wouldn't get the money. So, she was -- she was -- and then when Cohen did sign the agreement and did pay, then she went silent again with me. COATES: So, she mentioned the idea of the election being a pivotal point, at least when she thought she would get made whole in her request. WEISBERG: Her entire concern was that after the election, Trump would renege on the agreement and wouldn't pay her. COATES: An important detail. Jacob Weisberg, thank you so much for joining. There's a story that I want to tell you more about, and it has nothing to do with the trial today or any of the news that we've been covering throughout the course of this show, but it is extraordinarily significant and has to do with this young man. He's a Florida airman. And he was shot and killed in his own home, his apartment, by police. His family says that he was playing video games and on FaceTime, and that the deputy went to the wrong apartment. Now, the sheriff's office says, no, it was the correct unit. We'll unpack what happened in just a moment. (COMMERCIAL BREAK) [23:45:00] (COMMERCIAL BREAK) COATES: Twenty-three-year-old active-duty airman Roger Fortson was inside of his apartment. His family says he was playing video games when he heard a knock at his door. Seconds later, he was shot at least five times in his own home by police. And tonight, after pleas from the family, police are releasing the body camera footage. It's important for you all to see. But I have to warn you, this is extremely graphic. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) (KNOCKING) UNKNOWN (voice-over): Sheriff's office, open the door. (KNOCKING) Sheriff's office, open the door. Step out. (GUNSHOTS) Drop the gun! Drop the gun! UNKNOWN: (INAUDIBLE). UNKNOWN (voice-over): Drop the gun! UNKNOWN: (INAUDIBLE). UNKNOWN (voice-over): 312 shots fired. Suspect down. (END VIDEO CLIP) COATES: At the time of the shooting, Fortson was on a FaceTime call with his girlfriend. [23:50:00] The family releasing a portion of that video tonight. And I warn you again, it's incredibly disturbing. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) UNKNOWN (voice-over): I can't breathe. UNKNOWN (voice-over): Do not move. Stop moving. Stop moving. Hang on, man. We got an ambulance coming for you. Don't move. (END VIDEO CLIP) COATES: The police are saying -- quote -- "Our deputy responded to a call of a disturbance in progress where he encountered an armed man." Tonight, that officer is currently on administrative leave. The sheriff's department is requesting an investigation. Still, the family is demanding more information, insisting the officer went to the wrong apartment. The sheriff's department, well, they refute that. Here's Airman Fortson's mother and her message to the sheriff's department about her now deceased son. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) CHANTEMEKKI FORTSON, MOTHER OF ROGER FORTSON: To the sheriff's department that took my gift, I need you guys to tell the truth about my son. I need you to get his reputation right. (END VIDEO CLIP) COATES: I want to bring in Ben Crump, who's representing the Fortson family. Ben, to hear that mother described her son as a gift just breaks one's heart into a million pieces. How is that family doing tonight? BEN CRUMP, CIVIL RIGHTS ATTORNEY: Laura Coates, they are devastated beyond their belief. He was the brightest hope for his family. In fact, he took care of his mother as well as his 16-year-old little brother, Andre, and his 10-year-old angel, Harmony. He talked about living his dream as a United States Air Force member to give his family a better chance of the American dream. So, they are devastated, Laura. COATES: This is a nightmare for any family, an absolute nightmare to think about, just watching that unfold the way it did, the amount of time between the door opening and the shots fired. Tell me about the FaceTime video that you released tonight. What is it that you're alleging happened? CRUMP: Well, his girlfriend was on FaceTime video with him for a substantial amount of time. And it is troubling. They talk about a disturbance. However, he was in his apartment alone on FaceTime with his girlfriend, with his dog, and there was no disturbance. You look at his history. He is an American patriot. This is a good kid. No criminal history whatsoever. He respects authority. He was a registered licensed gun owner. They -- his girlfriend talked about -- they heard a knock at the door. He asked who it was. He and his girlfriend didn't hear anybody identify themselves, she said. But then, he opened the door. And less than a split second, Laura -- I mean, he's trying to comply. He said, step back. Roger steps back. I mean, you see this kid comply. The officer never said, drop your weapon. And after he shot him and was on the ground, Roger was even complying then as he's fighting for his life. He says, drop the weapon. And Roger said, I did. And then you hear on the FaceTime video where he said, I can't breathe, I can't breathe. And the officer said, don't move, don't move. I mean, it's like, why didn't you try life-saving maneuvers? I mean, it's so troubling, Laura, on so many levels. COATES: I mean, this is not sadly the first time we've even heard about someone being shot in their home by police officers. And, you know, you represented many families. We have all been watching what has been happening. I mean, these are not analogous scenarios. But when it comes to, say, a Botham Jean or a Breonna Taylor, I could go on with -- Atatiana Jefferson. Just to name a few people who were all gifts to their families. There is an investigation that is now pending. We have sometimes seen what happens in investigations. What do you expect to happen? How are they approaching the investigation? Is it in a way that you feel confident? CRUMP: Well, the family, as his mother said, do not try to justify this unjustified killing. On that video, Laura, at the beginning, somebody from the leasing office, they say, what apartment is it? She says, I'm not sure. They asked her again. She says, I'm not sure. But then, she says 1401 apartment. And we believe they were wrong. They were simply at the wrong apartment. There is nothing to suggest that Roger Fortson was in a domestic dispute with anybody. And now, this innocent prince, this U.S. airman, this gift to his family, is dead. [23:55:03] COATES: This is an active-duty person as well. Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin saying through a spokesperson tonight that he is -- quote -- "closely watching the reports of airmen force and fatal shooting." And I do wonder what we might see from the military's response of what has happened to one of their only 23-year-old active-duty airman described by his mother as a beloved gift. Ben Crump, thank you so much. CRUMP: Thank you, Laura. God bless you. COATES: Thank you to you as well. And I want to thank you all for watching. Our coverage continues. (COMMERCIAL BREAK)