The Lead with Jake Tapper Aired May 10, 2024 - 16:00 ET THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED. [16:00:01] … (COMMERCIAL BREAK) TAPPER: Welcome to THE LEAD. I'm Jake Tapper. This hour, one of the biggest competition shows in the world, rocked by protests over the Israel-Hamas war. Demonstrations outside as in Israeli singer in the final round is facing pressure from fellow contestants, and critics are calling for a boycott because she exists. The Lead with Jake Tapper Aired May 10, 2024 - 17:00 ET THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED. [17:00:00] JAKE TAPPER, CNN HOST: Plus, the high stakes report looming over President Biden on whether Israel violated international laws in its war with Hamas in Gaza. And leading this hour, the man once known as Trump's fixer, Michael Cohen, could soon be the closer in the New York hush money cover up case. Prosecutors say they plan to call Trump's former lawyer on Monday and they're saying that they may be able to rest their case by next week. CNN's Brynn Gingras is outside the courthouse following all of it for us. And, Brynn, today's proceedings laid a lot of the important groundwork for the big witness Monday, Michael Cohen. What can we expect on Monday? BRYNN GINGRAS, CNN NATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Yes, Jake, listen, this is the guy that said he would take a bullet for his boss, and he might be who helps the prosecution sink Donald Trump. So we'll have to see. Of course, he's the person who can bring jurors into that room, into the Oval Office in February 2017 when prosecutors say they sort of hatched this plan to make these reimbursement payments ahead of the 2016 election, they alleged that, you know, he conspired with other Trump Org members to figure out how these reimbursements will work. He's expected to be on the stand for a couple of days. Now, when the defense gets their turn to ask the questions, of course, they're going to attack his credibility like we have seen them do with other witnesses in this case about Michael Cohen. And they're basically going to continue to basically try to pull out the lies that they say he is sort of spreading. So we'll see how that goes. It doesn't help, though, Jake, that, listen, Michael Cohen earlier this week went on TikTok and posted a video. And while in that video, he's wearing a t-shirt that has an image of Donald Trump behind bars in an orange jumpsuit. Today at the end of court, the pros -- rather, the defense asked the judge to put a gag order on Michael Cohen based off of that video. That was denied. But there was a strong warning against Michael Cohen -- against really for the prosecution to make this warning. And basically, the judge says, listen, this comes from the bench, you need him to stop talking about Donald Trump in this trial. TAPPER: And, Brynn, today Judge Merchan also suggested that the former organization CFO, the Trump Organization CFO Allen Weisselberg, that he could be brought in to testify. I think he's in prison right now. How would that work? GINGRAS: Yes, look, Allen Weisselberg's name has come up a bunch in this trial from other witnesses. Prosecutors allege he's a part of this conspiracy, right? So they need to close the loop on why jurors are not hearing test -- him, testify. And they essentially want to bring forward an argument, this is something that they made without the jurors in the room to the judge, basically a severance agreement that Weisselberg has with the Trump organization. Now, the defense has said, look, that is highly prejudicial. That should not be allowed. But before the judge said he'll make his decision, he says, listen, did the prosecution even ask if Allen Weisselberg wants to testify? And the prosecution said, no. So essentially the judge said, well, let's bring them in without the jurors here. Let's see if he wants to testify or if he'll plead the fifth. And based off of that, then I'll make a decision on whether or not that agreement can be put forth to jurors. So we'll see where that lands up. But that was certainly asked. And again, quick note, Jake. We are expecting, according to prosecution, to possibly have them wrap up their case by the end of next week. TAPPER: All right. But then, of course, the defense gets their turn. Brynn Gingras in New York, thank you so much. Joining us now, attorney Michael van der Veen from the great city of Philadelphia. He was one of Trump's lawyers in the second impeachment trial. Thanks so much for being here. So, let me ask you, how do you think the prosecution can convince the jury that Michael Cohen is a credible witness? I understand all the ways the defense can make him a non-credible one. MICHAEL VAN DER VEEN, FORMER TRUMP ATTORNEY: It's going to be really hard, Jake. But, you know what they've done from the beginning of the trial is judge. You know, they had a couple options here. They could have started with Cohen and then put all the underpinnings around him. But what they did, I think, because he's so incredible, is they built a frame around him, all the points to him, and then they're finishing up with him so that when his credibility is attacked, the jury already has in their mind the other factors that they've heard that corroborate the prosecution's theory of the case. TAPPER: What is your reaction to Judge Merchan today telling prosecutors his order for Cohen to stay quiet and stop things like wearing a shirt with Donald Trump in prison in a jumpsuit, that this comes from the bench? And could Cohen face repercussions? VAN DER VEEN: A little too little, a little too late. TAPPER: Yes. VAN DER VEEN: I mean, that should have been done before the trial started. And it's interesting and I think strategic. The defense didn't ask for that. They never asked to shut Cohen up, to shut the other witnesses up. They just didn't want to be shut up themselves. They could have asked that as well. And the judge could have issued that order right in the beginning of the trial. Look, this trial started juries and paneled, we're not going to have anybody on their social media attacking him, and he's not going to be attacking them. Let's let this case come in pure and simple. But Cohen's been going nuts and, you know, to a certain extent, I think that's going to affect his credibility as well. [17:05:08] TAPPER: So you think that the prosecution -- I'm sorry, you think that the defense did not do that purposefully because it certainly gives them ample evidence of, like, look, this is how much you hate Donald Trump? VAN DER VEEN: I think that's probably a consider -- a thought process they had. The defense team are good lawyers. They're very thorough. They're strategic in thinking. They've been planning this thing for, you know, darn near a year. And I think that, you know, obviously, if they wanted to shut Cohen up, they would have brought the motion and they didn't. And that wasn't an oversight. I think that was strategic. TAPPER: Let me bring a piece from a piece of testimony today, because earlier today the jury heard more about how Trump would sign things without reviewing them first. We just got the official transcript. Here's how Trump attorney Susan Necheles pressed former White House assistant Madeleine Westerhout on this issue. Full screen, here we go. Necheles, "And there were times, you know, with all these would you say it was hundreds of documents that he was signing?" Westerhout, "Not every day. But sometimes, uh-huh." Necheles, "And this was in between other things that he was doing, right?" Westerhout, "Oh, yes, uh-huh." Necheles, "And so, would you see him signing things without reviewing them?" "Yes," said Westerhout. Necheles, "And would you see him signing checks without reviewing them?" Westerhout, "Yes." Necheles, "And would you see him signing checks while he was on the phone, right?" Westerhout, "Yes." Necheles, "Would you see him sometimes signing checks when he was meeting with people?" Westerhout, "Yes." How strong was that? Do you think, for the defense? VAN DER VEEN: I think that was very strong. You know, you have to also put it in perspective of the corporation that they're in. You know, they're up at the top of Trump Tower and those offices are very busy. TAPPER: Well, this was when he was in the White House, though. VAN DER VEEN: When he was in that White House. I haven't been in the White House -- TAPPER: Yes. VAN DER VEEN: -- with him, but it's very typical of him. He's a busy guy. He thinks of a lot of stuff all the time. He'll do 10 things at once and his mind will go from one place to another. And frankly, I don't know anybody who isn't really successful, who isn't operating in the same way. You know, I'll be signing things and talking on the phone and doing everything else. And most everybody else I know who are busy are prone to do that kind of a thing. You trust the people under you -- TAPPER: Right. VAN DER VEEN: -- that are putting the things in front of you to be signed. TAPPER: So, there was a piece of yesterday's testimony that's relevant to what we just discussed. The prosecution asked Stormy Daniels about a 2018 joint filing by Donald Trump and Michael Cohen when they were together admitting that Mr. Trump reimbursed Michael Cohen for the $130,000 of hush money in pursuant to the DNA or the -- I'm sorry, the NDA, the non-disclosure agreement. Is that a big deal, do you think? I mean, him acknowledging Donald Trump in a different court, acknowledging, yes, I reimbursed Michael Cohen for that. VAN DER VEEN: Absolutely. I mean, that could even be considered a smoking gun because the defense is contrary to that now. And to go and shift like that both times in a court of law, I think is very -- going to be very difficult to get over. TAPPER: So very quickly, Stormy Daniels, Donald Trump wanted to be let out this gag order so he could respond to Stormy Daniels' testimony. Judge Merchan said no. Stormy Daniels tweeted, quote, "Real men respond to testimony by being sworn in and taking the stand in court. Oh, wait, never mind." Your fellow Philadelphia attorney Bill Brennan said that tweet could be grounds for a mistrial. VAN DER VEEN: Well, you know, I don't want to contradict the great legal mind of Bill Brennan, but, you know, that's outside of court. The jury's not supposed to be looking at social media or anything of that nature. And she's not one of the lawyers in the case. You know, she's really just a witness in the case. If a lawyer were to bring up his Fifth Amendment right to remain silent, that would be a real problem and absolutely a mistrial at that time. TAPPER: All right, Michael van der Veen, good to see you. Thank you so much. VAN DER VEEN: Pleasure. Thank you for having me. TAPPER: Go Phillies. Every single day, Donald Trump comes out to the cameras in that courthouse hallway and rants about this case. But what's he saying behind the scenes? A guest coming up has new insight into that. But first, some breaking news. The high stakes report anticipated from the Biden administration is now out gauging whether or not, in their view, Israel and its defense forces violated international law in its war with Hamas. We're back in a breaking moment with that breaking news. (COMMERCIAL BREAK) [17:13:20] TAPPER: Some breaking news for you in our world lead, the Biden administration just delivered its high stakes report to Congress on whether Israel, in their view, has violated international humanitarian law during its war in Gaza against Hamas. This report has been the subject of intense debate for months across and inside the Biden administration has already led to deep divisions just inside the U.S. State Department. CNN's Kylie Atwood is following the story from the state Department. Kylie, what does the report find? KYLIE ATWOOD, CNN NATIONAL SECURITY CORRESPONDENT: Well, listen, this report finds that it would be reasonable to assess, in the words of this report, that Israel has violated international humanitarian law since October 7, but it doesn't definitively make the determination that they have actually violated law, saying that those assessments, those individual assessments of those specific Israeli strikes are still ongoing. And this report gets into the complexity of making these assessments, Jake, saying that particularly because of how Hamas hides in population centers, hides infrastructure that is used by civilians, it's really challenging to make an assessment here as to whether or not Israel undertook all of the necessary actions to prevent it from breaking international humanitarian law as it continues to go after Hamas in this war. The other thing that I want to note the report states is that Israel does have the experience. They do have the capability to drive down the death of civilians. But this report says that there are substantial questions as to if Israel is using those capabilities effectively. That's something that the State Department will continue to look at. [17:15:00] The other part of this is that the U.S. and Israel have been going back and forth as the State Department has been working on this report. A senior State Department official described this as a useful tool to push Israel to try and make changes, to drive down those civilian death tolls that we have seen throughout the course of this war, to try and make changes to the way that it delivers humanitarian aid into Gaza. But they also said that as they are probing these incidents, these specific incidents that could be violations of international humanitarian law, Israel has provided some information to them, but there's still gaps in terms of what Israel has provided to them. So this will be an ongoing process. Right now, the State Department not saying there's a timeline by which they expect to get that information from Israel to make definitive conclusions, Jake. TAPPER: All right. Kylie Atwood, thank you so much. Let's bring in CNN military analyst and retired Air Force Colonel Cedric Leighton. Colonel, what's your initial reaction to this assessment? And what type of weapons do you think this report might be referencing? CEDRIC LEIGHTON, AIRFORCE COLONEL (RET.): Yes, Jake, I think the big reference here is to the 2000 pound bombs in particular, but any type of weapon that the Israelis are using that has had an impact on the civilians in Gaza. And that would include not only those 2000 pound bombs, which are usually delivered by air, as well as 500 pound bombs and then artillery shells. So all of these weapons are the ones that have been used against the Hamas targets that Israel is going after, and those would be legitimate targets. But they've also had the effect of impacting collateral, civilian targets. And that, of course, brings about the issue of collateral damage, which is precisely what this report is talking about. So my initial assessment here is that, in essence, what's going on is the U.S. is saying that Israel probably violated international humanitarian law, but they don't have all of the evidence yet to make a definitive conclusion that that's the case. TAPPER: And the question, of course, is how do you think Prime Minister Netanyahu is going to respond to this finding, especially given the political realities that Netanyahu is completely dependent on these far, far right wing religious zealot cabinet ministers Ben- Gvir and Smotrich to survive as prime minister. What do you think he's going to do, just reject it? LEIGHTON: He might just do that, Jake. One of the key problems that he has, as you point out, is that he's really dealing with this far right element within his government. He can't really rely on other parties within Israel, such as, let's say, the Labor Party or other more centrist parties to get him out of his political mess at this particular point in time. And as a result of that, he may very well reject these kinds of findings. It is possible, though, that he may try to accommodate or have his military accommodate some of the U.S. questions when it comes to use of weapons, especially U.S. supplied weapons in the war in Gaza. And so he's, in essence, trying to -- you may have to a fine line here, but I think he's going to go for a much more severe response and in essence, be like a cornered animal and go after any target that he possibly can more brutally and more viciously than he has up until this point. TAPPER: President Biden told CNN's Erin Burnett this week that he has a red line of sorts when it comes to providing weapons to Israel, certain weapons, if Israel goes forward with launching a major invasion on the southern Gaza town of Rafah. Biden says that's when he would halt some specific weapons shipments if there is a major involvement. Israel is already on the ground in Rafah, of course, and Biden didn't say emphatically that he would halt all military aid to Israel, just some of it, if there's a major, major engagement in Rafah. So I don't know how much of a red line that really is, despite all of the hue and cry about it. Do you disagree? LEIGHTON: Not necessarily, because, you know, we know that Israel has already moved its forces along the border with Egypt. So Rafah, which is right on that Egyptian border, is basically cut off from that particular area right now. We also know that the Israelis have surrounded parts of eastern Rafah. So they have the means to take basically care of each element of the operations that they've planned for the eastern part of Rafah right now. So they really don't need additional weapons from the U.S. to do that part of the mission. The other parts, though, if they were to go after other elements in Gaza, especially in the western part of Rafah and perhaps other parts of Gaza, that could then present a bit of a problem because they may not have as many weapons of the type that we're talking about in their inventory to really finish that part of the mission. So in essence, what we're looking at is the ability of the Israelis to partially complete their mission and to do it in a way that's most efficient for them at this particular point without U.S. help, additional us help in this case. [17:20:11] TAPPER: All right. Colonel Cedric Leighton, thank you so much. Turning back to our coverage of Donald Trump's criminal hush money trial, one of the main takeaways from this week is the salacious testimony by porn star and director Stormy Daniels. She gave some excruciating details about her alleged sexual encounter with Trump. Trump denies any of it ever happened, but some say this trial might be getting to Trump. Joining us now to discuss former federal prosecutor, senior writer for Politico magazine, Ankush Khardori. Ankush, thanks so much for being with us. So this week you've been speaking with some of the most deeply entrenched reporters and analysts that you work with at Politico. And they say that this is personally grueling for Trump. I have to say, I was in court yesterday and he really did look not upbeat, not confident, kind of downtrodden. You know, I've seen him looking much more robust. Is this, whatever he's going through, how difficult this is on him, and no one's asking for pity for him, we're just reporting this, is that solely because of Stormy Daniels' testimony? ANKUSH KHARDORI, FORMER FEDERAL PROSECUTOR: I don't think it's solely because of Stormy Daniels' testimony, but I think that probably has had a lot to do with it in recent days. But you're right. I mean, my colleague Meridith McGraw, who has been following the Trump campaign, my other colleagues who've been in the courtroom, they've detected visibly the same thing. And, you know, what Meredith was saying is like, this looks to be taking a visible toll on him. It's quite grueling. And our other politics reporters have noted, for instance, this is taking him not off the campaign trail, he doesn't spend much time on the campaign trail, but it's taking him away from things like donor calls and the sorts of touches he has with friends and allies that sort of give him his required ego boosts throughout the day. And I do think you can see it at the end of the day. And I don't think it's entirely just exhaustion or maybe that's part of it despite his claim to be very vigorous. It seems to be taking a toll on him every day like that he's sort of down and just not altogether with it. TAPPER: So, when talking with your colleagues, you said, quote, "Smart criminal defenses do sometimes concede unpleasant facts in order to get the jury to focus on the material ones that might actually get the defendant off." So just to recap and translate that for our viewers, your legalese, in a way, it's not against the law. It's certainly not Nevada law, where this allegedly happened, for Donald Trump to have done whatever happened in that hotel room, assuming that she even was there because he says she wasn't. But whatever it was, assuming that everything she said is true happened -- KHARDORI: Right. TAPPER: -- none of that's against the law. Paying her hush money, none of that's against the law. The crime is just about whether or not he falsified business records to keep this out of the public's eye during the election. You're suggesting that maybe it would have been better if they just stipulated, OK, something happened in that thing and we paid her hush money? KHARDORI: Yes, that is exactly what I'm suggesting. TAPPER: Yes. KHARDORI: And I think that actually would have been a fairly conventional defense strategy in this circumstance because they, frankly, they just walked right into Stormy Daniels' testimony and they forced the prosecutors, even if they were not going to put her on to put her on. Trump has been denying this account for, you know, her account for years. And crucially, Trump's lead attorney repeated that denial in his opening statement. So, if you're the prosecutors, you know, that's the start of this story. Maybe they weren't inclined to put the whole thing out there. But now they kind of were forced to put it out in detail because her credibility was attacked. And what they've managed to do this week, if you believe Stormy Daniels account, which I do, I don't think there's any real serious question that the two had, you know, a sexual relationship of some sort, that's my own view. But if you believe her account, then the prosecutors managed to demonstrate that Trump's a central plank of Trump's defense is a lie. And also that Trump's lead attorney was willing to relay that lie to the jury in his opening statement, thereby undercutting his credibility with them, too. So, I don't think this was a good week for them. I think that they could have substantially mitigated and perhaps even preempted her testimony. But Trump seems to be, you know, determined to continue denying this. TAPPER: So in a different court case in California, it's already stipulated that he gave -- he paid that money. They paid money and that was introduced in trial testimony, $30,000 to kill a story that wasn't true about some kid he allegedly had. That wasn't true. Why not just stipulate at the beginning? Or could you actually stipulate? We're not going to stipulate that anything happened, but we're going to stipulate that she had a story that we didn't want out there. We're not going to say whether or not it's true, it's not material, we did pay that money. KHARDORI: Yes. I don't -- well, first of all, to stipulate, the prosecutors would have had to agree, and I don't think they would have. This would have needed to be a sort of preemptive concession in the trial, right? And then you use that concession, as the prosecution is calling additional witness to say, well, we don't need to hear from this person or we can cabin their testimony to this or that. [17:25:06] TAPPER: Yes. KHARDORI: But I don't think it would have worked for them just to say the stories. We're not taking position because the details goes directly to his motive for wanting to kill the story. TAPPER: All right, Ankush Khardori, thank you so much. Really interesting stuff. Donald Trump plans to use his weekend break from the hush money trial to hold a rally in a state that leans heavily blue. What his campaign might see as the race for 2024 inches closely to November -- closer to November. (COMMERCIAL BREAK) …