Anderson Cooper 360 Degrees Aired May 13, 2024 - 20:00 ET THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED. [20:00:00] … ANDERSON COOPER, CNN HOST: Good evening and what a day and welcome to a week of testimony from perhaps the most consequential and controversial prosecution witness in the former president's hush money trial, Michael Cohen. A one-time fixer, attorney and according to his memoir, designated thug for the former president. He's now a convicted felon and self-admitted perjurer, but despite that resume, he took the stand today as the single individual who can, should the jury believe him, do what no other witness can, testify to multiple direct conversations with the former president about the then candidate's alleged knowledge and even authorization of every critical step of the alleged hush money crime that forms the basis of the 34 felony charges against him. Plus, Cohen can testify to the prosecution's allegation that the so- called catch-and-kill scheme was a political move designed to win an election. Cohen today quoted Trump telling him he wanted Stormy Daniels' allegation under wraps until after the election, quote, "If I win, it has no relevance. I will be president. If I lose, I don't even care." Prosecutor used texts, call logs and emails wherever possible to document Cohen's testimony and tried to front end the credibility issues the defense will certainly use against Cohen. Afterwards, the former president addressed the news media. He had harsh words for the trial itself and the judge, but no mention of the witness, suggesting the gag order may be having an effect. Joining me now, criminal defense attorney, Arthur Aidala, former federal prosecutor Jeffrey Toobin, and a slew of my colleagues who were in the courthouse on this huge day, anchors Abby Phillip, Kaitlan Collins, Laura Coates and also correspondent Kara Scannell. Kara, let's start off with you as we often do. What was it like? KARA SCANNELL, CNN CORRESPONDENT: I mean, I thought it was just so fascinating how Michael Cohen was so controlled today. His answers were very deliberate. He chose his words carefully. He was measured as he told this whole story from when he first started working for Donald Trump, where he was talking favorably about him, about the experience, to ultimately where we ended up at the end of the day, which is where he said Donald Trump approved this reimbursement to him. Another thing that really stood out to me was how prosecutors were weaving these call logs in between everything that Michael Cohen was testifying to, to really give the jury something else to look at, not just ... COOPER: That is not just Michael Cohen's word. SCANNELL: Right. It's not just Michael Cohen's word because a lot of this is Cohen remembering a conversation he had with Trump, but there's no other evidence of what that conversation was except these call logs show that calls took place. One that stood out to me, right before Michael Cohen went to the bank to create the bank account for Essential Consultants and then wire the $130,000 payment to Keith Davidson, Stormy Daniels' attorney. He called Donald Trump twice that morning at 8:30. We know he got to the bank at 10 AM and opened the account and began this process. So we were seeing from the prosecutors' - getting to the credibility issues of Cohen, giving the jury something else to look at here, which were these call logs. COOPER: Kaitlan, you were there in the afternoon. What was that like? KAITLAN COLLINS, CNN ANCHOR: Yes, in the afternoon is really when they got to the heart of why we're sitting inside that courtroom, which is the negotiation of this deal. That was interesting to me. I never heard Michael Cohen say before that he spoke to Donald Trump before he took down that home equity line of credit. But what was so notable about that moment is what we had heard from Kara and our other colleagues all morning was that Trump wasn't - or that Michael Cohen wasn't really looking at the jury, wasn't making eye contact. When he was answering that question and explaining why he did it, which is because it was paperless, no documents would come in the mail to his home saying that he took out a $130,000 line of credit because his wife didn't know. And he was explaining that he looked directly at the jury for sustained periods of time and was kind of walking him through it. And then in another moment, he was explaining when - which the prosecution was trying to get at because they know the defense will bring this up on cross-examination, is Michael Cohen wanted a job inside the Trump administration and didn't get one. And Michael Cohen was saying today, he didn't actually think he was qualified to be chief of staff, but he wanted his name to be included ... COOPER: Why would that stop anybody? COLLINS: Yes, that's a great - well, this was the before days. COOPER: Uh-huh. COLLINS: But he wanted his name to be included because it was essentially an ego boost. He was very upfront and blunt about that. But he was talking about text messages with his daughter and how good of a relationship that they have and where she was texting him and they showed this on the screen, that she was asking, you're not going to get a job after everything you've done for Donald Trump and that was kind of his feeling as well. And he was kind of explaining that to the jury and they were listening very closely. And it was kind of a humanizing moment for Michael Cohen, which he certainly is going to need when the defense tries to obviously eviscerate them as we're expecting. [20:05:04] ABBY PHILLIP, CNN ANCHOR: Yes, I mean, there were a lot of those moments. COOPER: You were there in the morning. PHILLIP: I was there in the morning for the kind of the ramp up to all of this. And this is where you really saw Michael Cohen, I think, exercising the control that Kara is talking about. We've all at some point or another talked to Michael Cohen, the version of Michael Cohen that most people are used to. He's pretty bombastic. He can be very loud. He was not that person on the witness stand. When he first got there in the morning, he had his hands to his side, almost as if he was sitting on them. He kind of had - his body language was so close to the vest. And he starts talking about this relationship with Trump, trying to build up this credibility that he was not always this bitter person, even to the point of talking on numerous occasions about how many times he did things for Donald Trump knowing that he would not get paid for it. He was not paid for a lot of work that he did before he came into The Trump Organization. COOPER: Right. There was a hundred thousand dollar (INAUDIBLE) ... PHILLIP: A hundred thousand dollar bill that - and that served in two key ways. And this perhaps speaks to how well he was prepared. One, it showed that Trump, if he didn't want to pay a bill, he wouldn't pay it. But two, that Michael Cohen was willing to kind of do whatever for the simple praise of being in Trump's orbit. And then again, when - after the election, Trump doesn't give him the job of his dreams, but does make him a personal attorney. He says he knew he wasn't going to get paid for that job. He was going to have the title, but no compensation. The only money that he was going to get were those $35,000 checks that were actually more or less reimbursements for the hush money scheme. LAURA COATES, CNN ANCHOR: I was really struck by just how puppy-like he portrayed himself for Donald Trump. I mean ... COOPER: You were there in the morning trial. COATES: ... I was there in the morning. It was a bit surreal to see him describe himself - his voice would almost be wistful, talking about I was on top of the world - when he would praise him. That he was seeking that praise, that validation. And that was so important for the prosecution to get out because they want the jury to have a snapshot. They don't want the Michael Cohen of today. They want to have the person who, at that time, what were you willing to do, what did you do, but more importantly, at whose behest did you do so. We hadn't heard much testimony up until now about the directions that were given by Donald Trump, who he was giving the instructions to. We heard today. I want you and David Pecker to work together; you and Allen Weisselberg to figure this out. The instructions given in a way we had not seen before. And there was also a moment where they took the wind out of the sale of the defense argument to suggest that, look, he's a liar in all capacities, why believe him. Well, he says, one, I lied routinely for Donald Trump. That was part of my job. He knew that I did that for the media. The other part was the big question everyone asked. Why did he record that phone call or that conversation between himself and Donald Trump? He says, fronting the issue, I did it because I wanted David Pecker to remain loyal to Trump. I did it because I wanted to show Pecker that he didn't intend to pay the money. And I knew it was going to cut off the phone call at the end or the conversation at the end, but it didn't matter, I already had what I needed at that point. And so whether that's coming across as authentic to the jury or not ... COOPER: That seems like the biggest bunch of bull. I mean, that ... COATES: I mean, look ... COOPER: ... so what he's arguing is that he - Donald Trump's personal attorney, is secretly recording a phone call against ... COATES: Covers ... COOPER: ... violating all sorts of ethical things of his own client that he's then going to play to David Pecker, an alleged personal friend of Donald Trump ... COATES: Yes. COOPER: ... to tell David Pecker how Trump has his back. If I'm the personal friend of Donald Trump and I'm David Pecker, why wouldn't David Pecker go to Trump and say, your personal attorney recorded you secretly. PHILLIP: Well, okay, there's more to the story. There's more to the story. COATES: Yes, there's more, Anderson. They didn't say at the - that's why at the beginning it was so important, were you part of the legal team? No, I was not. Were you part of general counsel? No, I was not. Now we had heard the idea of him being called the attorney all this time. It seemed like he was just (INAUDIBLE) himself. COOPER: But he's still planning to tell David Pecker ... PHILLIP: But here's the thing ... COOPER: ... that he secretly recorded a phone call? PHILLIP: Here's the thing, Anderson ... COATES: Yes. PHILLIP: ... the other part about this is that, yes, David Pecker was a close friend to a degree of Donald Trump's. But according to Michael Cohen, this is his testimony, David Pecker was furious and was antsy. He was nervous that he had put basically $130,000 on AMI's bank account and he couldn't justify it. And he wanted Trump to repay that money back. And on top of that, AMI had that drawer of dirt, alleged dirt, on Donald Trump and Michael Cohen was nervous about that. And so the money that was supposed to go to Karen McDougal was not just for Karen McDougal, but also for the contents of that drawer. The part that I was the most skeptical of was why all of a sudden that went away. UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Right. PHILLIP: It went away pretty suddenly. All of a sudden, David Pecker was like, oh, I made all this money off of Karen McDougal, et cetera. COOPER: But isn't the more rational explanation, he knew that this was sketchy, and he was recording for his own protection ... PHILLIP: Yes. COATES: Yes, yes. COOPER: ... this conversation with Donald Trump. PHILLIP: Absolutely, yes. But that's also not to the benefit of Donald Trump either -- [20:10:02] COOPER: Right. PHILLIP: -- I don't think I don't think, but yes. COOPER: Jeff, did the prosecution accomplish what they needed to today? JEFFREY TOOBIN, CNN CHIEF LEGAL ANALYST: Well, the thing that struck me in reading, I was not in the courtroom, but in reading the testimony, is the scaffolding that the prosecution is building around Michael Cohen. Kara mentioned the phone records, but it's not just the phone records. It's how often the prosecution, Susan Hoffinger, the lawyer, either explicitly or implicitly connected his testimony to other evidence in the case, whether it's other testimony, other documents, just building this scaffolding so that if he gets attacked, it's not just his word. Now, obviously his word counts for a lot, especially in the conversations with Trump. But other than that, what - the question I have, and I assume we'll get to this later, is just how are they going to attack him. Because - I mean, they can't say he didn't know Donald Trump, and the checks speak for themselves. He did pay Stormy Daniels. He did get checks from Trump. I mean, what is - they're going to say he's a liar, he's terrible, but what is it that he lied about? PHILLIP: I'm going to offer one. COOPER: If only we had a defense attorney here that we could ask. What would you attack him on? ARTHUR AIDALA, NEW YORK CRIMINAL DEFENSE ATTORNEY: So everyone's saying, oh, today was a great day for the prosecution. If today was not a great day for the prosecution, Alvin Bragg has to go in there tomorrow and dismiss the charges. I mean, today had to be a great day. Oh, the first - maybe one of the first - I mean, there's so many ways to attack. But I would say, Mr. Cohen, you testified in direct examination that you didn't take $130,000 out of your bank account because - to pay for this, because you didn't want your wife to know, correct? And what you determined to do - the way to get around that was to take out a home equity line of credit, correct? And that was a way for you to lie to your wife, correct? No, no, I wasn't lying to my wife. Well, you didn't go home and say, honey, we have to make a decision here in our marriage to give $130,000 to pay this off. You didn't do that, correct? So you deceived your own wife regarding this particular matter, correct? TOOBIN: How does that make Donald Trump innocent? AIDALA: It's - Jeffrey, you know this. TOOBIN: What? AIDALA: I have the charge, we'll read it later on. I have the charge that the judge will read to the jury at the end of the case about credibility. And basically, Anderson, what it says is, you can accept in whole or in part, it's called falsus in uno. So if you find that he's lying about one thing, just one thing, the judge is going to tell him, you can throw out all of the testimony. And what President Trump needs is one or two or maybe three of those people in the jury to be like, I can't believe - if Abby doesn't believe him about one thing, seriously, then obviously one or two of those people are going to agree with her. Like, this guy's full of it. PHILLIP: I do have one other thing that I found to just be lacking in Michael Cohen's testimony. I mean, he testified to Allen Weisselberg talking him through how he would be compensated. And then he says, Allen Weisselberg went and basically briefed Trump. But he wasn't in the room for that conversation. The strong implication is that Trump was then told that he was going to be given - Michael Cohen was going to be given this money on the cover of some kind of retainer, which is the falsification of business records part of it. But Michael Cohen doesn't actually know that. And he testified that maybe that conversation happened, but he can't really prove it and you can't really prove it without Allen. COLLINS: But he was asked at the end, which is probably one of those critical lines to come out of this, is if Allen Weisselberg showed that document, which is the key document, really, of the whole case to Trump, where they talk about how they'll change it and how he's going to be compensated and then get the extra 50 grand for something that Trump didn't pay him for. And he testified that, yes, Allen Weisselberg did show that document to Trump and that Trump did approve it. COOPER: And if you're the jury, aren't you wondering where ... COLLINS: Is Allen Weisselberg? COOPER: ... is Allen Weisselberg? COLLINS: Yes, that's the (INAUDIBLE) ... COATES: I think, you - and, of course, you - they've called other people to talk about what he's done and how the accounting works, but that's the real - missing elephant in the room. But one way to get a sense of how maybe the fact finders, the jury, are thinking about this is through the objections that were raised by the defense that were sustained today, when the judge is going along with what they're arguing. And part of that was every time the prosecution attempted to say and go one step further with Michael Cohen and say - and from - what did you think that person meant when they said that to you or what do you think that person was feeling at the time. It was an objection. It was sustained each time, because you're needing Michael Cohen to go that extra step to suggest it wasn't just intimation. It wasn't just my thought about how and why you were saying it, but could you actually give me the verbatim details of what they said as opposed to him just saying, well, what did he say once you told him things had been done? Fantastic. He kept saying, he said, fantastic. Fantastic is not an instruction, but it could be for the jury indication that he wanted it to happen. COOPER: Kara Scannell, thank you. We're going to have more. Everyone else, stay with us. We just got the full transcripts of today's testimony, including Michael Cohen admitting to past lies. John Berman is going to go through those for us. Plus the most fascinating viewpoint in the entire courtroom, sketch artist, Christine Cornell, joins us, except for the people on the panel, of course. [20:15:05] Christine Cornell joins us again with her impressions of a place where no cameras are sadly allowed. We'll be right back. (COMMERCIAL BREAK) [20:19:05] COOPER: We've just gotten the full transcript of the day's proceedings, and John Berman is going through it right now. Before we go through some of the key moments, it's worth noting that it was just over six years ago after months of silence about the alleged payment to Stormy Daniels, when then-President Trump finally answered repeated questions by the media and said he knew nothing about the payment, but pointed to Michael Cohen. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Mr. President, did you know about the $130,000 payment to Stormy Daniels? DONALD TRUMP, FORMER PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: No, no. What else? UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Why is Michael - why did Michael Cohen made this, if there was no truth to her allegations TRUMP: Well, you have to ask Michael Cohen. Michael is my attorney and you'll have to ask Michael Cohen. UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Do you know where he got the money to make that payment? TRUMP: No, I don't know. No. (END VIDEO CLIP) COOPER: Joining us now with transcripts from Cohen's testimony today, CNN's John Berman. JOHN BERMAN, CNN ANCHOR: So we did just get the final installment of the transcript, and it was at the very end of the day in this last section that perhaps the most important legal moment took place, and it had to do when Michael Cohen testifying about the payment plan and what Trump knew. [20:20:05] He described a meeting in Trump Tower in January of 2017, when Trump was president-elect at that point, with Allen Weisselberg, Michael Cohen and Donald Trump. Michael Cohen says, "During the conversation, Allen turned around and said to me, what we're talking about this, it was - and what we're going to do is, we're going to pay you over 12 months. It was probably better if I get it in one lump sum. No, no, no, no, no. Why don't you do it as over 12 months, and it will be paid out to you monthly?" Question from the prosecutor, Susan Hoffinger: "And did he say anything about how it would be paid out as something?" Cohen: "Yes. It was like legal service rendered since I was then being given the title of Personal Attorney to the President." Then a little bit later, Hoffinger asks, did Mr. Weisselberg state in front of Mr. Trump that you're going to receive $420,000 over the course of 12 months?" Cohen: "Yes." Hoffinger: "And what, if anything, did Mr. Trump say at the time?" Cohen says, "He approved it. And he also said: 'This is going to be one heck of a ride in D.C.'" Question from Hoffinger: "And did Mr. Weisselberg say in front of Mr. Trump that those monthly payments would be, you know, like a retainer for legal services?" Michael Cohen says, "Yes." COOPER: So why, Laura Coates, is that the most critical testimony from the day? COATES: Well, because we're talking about 34 counts of falsified business records. The heart of this matter is not whether there was an affair or whether the allegations were true about either Karen McDougal or, sorry, Stormy Daniels. It's about whether or not they intentionally falsified records to suggest that this was more than what McConney talked about, just simple drop-down menu. Oh, our options were this. I had to put legal services down. It was an intentional act, he's alleging. Of course, you're talking about Allen Weisselberg and Cohen in this conversation, but the defendant is actually Trump. That's the issue. AIDALA: If you looked at the words that Berman just wrote - read - I'm calling you that because that's what he calls you. I'm sorry. BERMAN: I answered a much worse. AIDALA: I don't mean to be disrespectful. I always hear ... BERMAN: Everybody calls me (INAUDIBLE) ... AIDALA: All right, sorry. He says he approved it, but he doesn't use the words that he approved it with. He quotes him saying, this is going to be a heck of a ride in D.C., which has nothing to do with the approval. So that's something that I would focus on as well. When you said he approved it, did he nod his head? Did he say something? You testified direct, he approved it, but he didn't say how he approved it and said, okay, that's great. That sounds good. Allen, get it done. You just said he approved it. But then you remember him saying, it's going to be a heck of a ride in DC. So why is your memory so clear about it's a heck of a ride in D.C. and not how did he approve it. TOOBIN: But isn't that statement that he remembers, if he were lying, wouldn't he say, oh yes, make it - be sure to make it look like a legal fee. In fact, it seems like Trump sort of changes the subject and talks about his experience in D.C. Isn't that, doesn't that suggest that he's not lying? AIDALA: My only point is he doesn't say how he approves it. He just says he approved it. What does that mean? COLLINS: Well, the other ... COATES: That was the (INAUDIBLE) ... COLLINS: ... the other question also is Michael Cohen talked about how he basically never constructed a retainer agreement for Trump because he never was getting paid for basically anything that he did for Donald Trump, including the $100,000 he was owed when he was first brought on a decade ago, and including in this moment when he was changing jobs then. So I think the other question that I had there was, okay, well, why is he now getting paid, and how often is - if you are getting a legal retainer, is it ever grossed up for taxes? AIDALA: No. COLLINS: No. AIDALA: No, no, no. AIDALA: Exactly. So that's the primary question here at the heart of this. PHILLIP: Well, the others -- COOPER: So, I mean, the critical thing about that meeting is if it's to be believed, this is the moment when Trump is informed that the billing is going to be this improper legal services, essentially. TOOBIN: Well, yes, but also Trump writes the checks. I mean, what is - what possible explanation ... PHILLIP: I guess ... TOOBIN: ... for there is there except that it is the deal that he worked out with Weisselberg and Cohen. PHILLIP: One of the questions that I have, I mean, if - I mean, maybe Arthur, you can speak to this, is there a defense in Trump saying or Trump's attorney saying, well, he was advised by Allen Weisselberg that this is the best way to do it, and he agreed? AIDALA: That's definitely a piece of it. And also, I mean, it's not that he - it's not that a veterinarian laid out the money and he's giving it to Michael Cohen, a legal fee, and then Michael Cohen's going to give it to him. His lawyer did lay out the money. The money is going to Michael Cohen. Michael Cohen is his lawyer. So writing a legal fee down there is not, like, so far-fetched. If I'm the - if I'm doing the closing argument, I would say, ladies and gentlemen of the jury, do you think when Donald Trump had constructions done on one of his buildings and he wrote out a check to the construction firm, do you think he broke it down? Well, this much was for concrete, and this much was for rebar, and this much was for window or did he just say, here, here's the big check. You deal with it from there. Here, Michael Cohen, here's the big check. [20:25:00] If some of it is money that you earn, it's yours. If some of it is money you laid out, it's yours. But in my mind, it all goes under legal fees. TOOBIN: Yes, but your legal ... COATES: And the prosecution has a different summation, right? And that's why they have book excerpts to talk about how meticulously he managed his money, how he didn't - how he would say, he even had Ms. Westerhout saying, look, he would look at the things, he would void out other aspects of it. He knew where his money was going. COOPER: He was telling Michael Cohen to pay $0.20 on the dollar. COATES: Exactly, he was telling him to renegotiate. Part of the testimony today was about Michael Cohen's job being to renegotiate invoices that he didn't like. That was a big part of his job. AIDALA: But the argument isn't he's not paying Michael Cohen, the argument that you make as defending Donald Trump is it's money going to his lawyer, okay? COLLINS: But he never paid him before. AIDALA: It's money - whether, I'm sorry, go ahead. COATES: Not for legal services, that's the point. AIDALA: Okay. But - and I think you could argue to a jury that this is minutiae and it's a political, it is a political hit job on this guy because that guy sitting in the front row, Alvin Bragg, who's not sitting in a murder trial right now, who's not sitting in a robbery trial right now, he's sitting here because he doesn't want him to be president of the United States. It's called selective prosecutions, ladies and gentlemen of the jury, and your justice in this courtroom and justice dictates that you walk him right out. COATES: Well, let me raise it with my (INAUDIBLE) ... AIDALA: Sorry. COATES: Well, I'll raise it with this ... (CROSSTALK) COATES: I got to go trial attorney with you on this because I would then say, thinking about sitting in different rooms, ladies and gentlemen of the jury, the president of the United States was in the Oval Office, not managing the free world. He wasn't talking about diplomacy. He wasn't talking about congressional action. He was thinking about writing checks to Michael Cohen because of Stormy Daniels. So if you want to talk about the rooms that we're in and why we're there and how long we stay there, do you - are you telling me that the person who is now the president of the United States was doing this? It is fair. COOPER: He was also concerned about Karen McDougal. COATES: You're right. You're right. But she's a very beautiful woman, he said, according to ... (CROSSTALK) PHILLIP: But isn't - I mean, do words not mean anything? I mean ... COATES: No, they don't, Abby. PHILLIP: ... they weren't legal services. That's a fact. AIDALA: But it's going to his lawyer. It's money going. PHILLIP: Like Michael Cohen wasn't ... AIDALA: Look, I know we're going to make a big deal that he watched every penny, I get that part. I think that's been proven beyond a reasonable doubt. I don't think they've proven beyond a reasonable doubt that he is involved without how it gets written down in ledger books or how it gets - how it goes down to his accountant. That's clearly Allen Weisselberg. COOPER: But Jeff, does that - what level of detail matters for this? TOOBIN: Well, what you're leaving out, Arthur, understandably because you're making the case for the defense is this is not an ordinary legal fee because as Donald Trump knows, this lawyer laid out $130,000 of his own money. AIDALA: That he hid from his wife, by the way. TOOBIN: That's for the campaign. AIDALA: Right. Well, that's what he did well today. TOOBIN: Right. For the campaign. AIDALA: That's what he did well today is, I think he made it clear that this had - well, if you believe his testimony, it that had nothing to do with Melania, this had nothing to do with his family, this had everything to do with the campaign and that's an essential element. COOPER: Yes, I mean, that was one of the most brutal moments of Michael Cohen's testimony. COLLINS: It was incredible. I think Berman has the transcript of ... BERMAN: Yes. COLLINS: Well, no, you have the transcript of the locker room talk ... BERMAN: I - well, I have both. COLLINS: The other where he ... BERMAN: Yes. COLLINS: Okay, that one is (INAUDIBLE) ... COOPER: Well, you know what, let me just play the soundbite because this was in the interview I did with Melania Trump in 2016 about the Access Hollywood tape. I think, if memory serves me, it was her first interview after the Access Hollywood tape. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) COOPER: He described it as locker room talk. MELANIA TRUMP, DONALD TRUMP'S WIFE: Mm-hmm. COOPER: To you - I mean, you sort of alluded to that as well. Is that what it is to you, just locker room talk? M. TRUMP: Yes, I - it's kind of two teenage boys - actually, they should behave better, right? He was not ... COOPER: He was 59. M. TRUMP: Correct. And sometimes I said, I have two boys at home, I have my young son and I have my husband. So - but I know how some men talk and that's how I saw it, yes. (END VIDEO CLIP) COOPER: What's interesting that we learned today, according to Michael Cohen, Melania Trump had a role in shaping her husband. BERMAN: Cohen says it was her idea. COLLINS: Which we've never heard of. BERMAN: Cohen says it was her idea. COOPER: The locker room ... BERMAN: Cohen says it was her idea. Hoffinger, the prosecutor, says, "What, if any, discussion do you remember with Mr. Trump about the Access Hollywood tape?" Cohen says, "He wanted me to reach out to all of my contacts with the media. We needed to put a spin on it. And the spin that he wanted to put on it was that this is locker room talk, something that Melania had recommended, or at least he told me that's what Melania had thought it was." Now, to your point, Kaitlan, about Melania, in a little bit of later point here, Michael Cohen goes on to say, Donald Trump really didn't care that much about what Melania thought. This is a little bit of an excerpt that also has a zinger about the timing here. Cohen says, "During the negotiation of purchase and acquire the life rights, what he had said to me is, what I want you to do is just push it out," This is the Stormy Daniels payment, "as long as you can, just get past the election, because if I win, it has no relevance. I will be president. If I lose, I don't even care." Then, the prosecutor says, "Did you bring up at the time the topic of his wife Melania in one of those conversations?" Cohen says, "I did." Hoffinger: "What did you say, in substance, to him?" Cohen says, "I said to him: And how's things going to go with the upstairs?" [20:30:04] Hoffinger says, "Were you concerned about that?" Cohen says, "I was." Hoffinger says, "And what, if anything, did he say to you about that?" COOPER: By the way, the upstairs meaning what's happening in the -- BERMAN: We believe what's happening with the family -- COOPER: Right. BERMAN: -- what's happening with the Mrs. (ph). COOPER: Upstairs in Trump Tower. BERMAN: Yes. So then Cohen says, "Don't worry, he goes. He goes, how long do you think I will be on the market for? Not long." Hoffinger says, "What did you understand that to mean?" Cohen says, "He wasn't thinking about Melania. This was all about the campaign." COLLINS: I mean, this was a remarkable moment. You know, we're getting these updates from reporters inside the room. And this is kind of one that makes you pause for a moment because it was essentially Michael Cohen, who was very enamored by the former first lady and went to apologize to her actually later on at the White House. They had a lunch after he lied to her about the Stormy Daniels affair and the allegation and the cover up of it. But this moment to hear -- I mean, and it's Michael Cohen's word that we're going off of. But to hear him say that Donald Trump was essentially saying he could get married again so easily that it wasn't a problem if she was upset by this. I mean, that was remarkable because also we know this turned into Donald Trump did win the White House. Melania Trump renegotiated her prenup and refused to move to Washington until it was done. And he is, if you talk to people, he's kind of terrified of Melania Trump. She's the one person whose opinion he actually holds in high regard. And when she's mad at him, it really bothers him. It's why this trial is so personal to him, because it gets him in trouble at home a lot. So that was a remarkable moment to hear Michael Cohen shed that insight. COOPER: Yes. Coming up, Stormy Daniels and the payment to her, obviously, also at the center of this trial. Up next, an exclusive interview with her Attorney Clark Brewster. We'll be right back. (COMMERCIAL BREAK) [20:35:50] COOPER: Stormy Daniels was, of course, the focus of a lot of today's direct examination of Michael Cohen. Back in early 2018, she signed a statement denying any affair with Donald Trump, a statement that was subsequently released to the public by Michael Cohen. I asked her about it during an interview I did with her for 60 Minutes. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) COOPER: So you signed and released a statement that said, "I'm not denying this affair because I was paid in hush money. I'm denying it because it never happened." That's a lie? STORMY DANIELS, FILM ACTRESS: Yes. COOPER: If it was untruthful, why did you sign it? DANIELS: Because they made it sound like I had no choice. COOPER: I mean, no one was putting a gun to your head. DANIELS: Not physical violence, no. COOPER: You thought that there would be some sort of legal repercussion if you didn't sign it. DANIELS: Correct. As a matter of fact, the exact sentence used was, they can make your life hell in many different ways. COOPER: They being? DANIELS: I'm not exactly sure who they were. I believe it to be Michael Cohen. (END VIDEO CLIP) COOPER: Joining us now in an exclusive interview is Stormy Daniels' attorney, Clark Brewster. I want to get your impressions of Michael Cohen's testimony today, and specifically how his statements tracked with things your client has said. Do you think that they have corroborated each other? CLARK BREWSTER, STORMY DANIELS' ATTORNEY: You know, it's interesting. I mean, Stormy has never met Michael Cohen. COOPER: Yes. BREWSTER: The first time they talked was in a podcast for Cohen. But -- so, obviously he has facts that she's not privy to with regard to the negotiations behind the scenes, how the money was allocated and dealt with. But I don't think there's anything that Michael Cohen had knowledge of involving Stormy that was inconsistent with what she testified to. COOPER: Did Stormy Daniels realize at the time how big a deal this was unfolding behind the scenes? I mean, did she know about the Michael Cohen factor? BREWSTER: I don't think she fully appreciated that. COOPER: Was it Keith Davidson just handling stuff? BREWSTER: Yes, Keith Davidson, who was representing Karen McDougal as well. COOPER: Right. BREWSTER: And Stormy was aware of that, I think, at some point. But obviously the nuances of how this was going down, she knew it was significant for the campaign, and that was the pressure point, basically. But I don't think she knew all of the machinations behind the scenes. COOPER: How do you think she came out of her testimony? BREWSTER: I think -- COOPER: And the cross-examination? BREWSTER: Yes. I think, first of all, the prosecution team is outstanding. We spent a lot of time with them, very careful dealing with the facts and circumstances and the corroboration of her testimony. The defense is dealing with a very, very hardworking, smart, careful prosecution team. But I think Stormy did a great job. COLLINS: You know, she hadn't come face-to-face with Trump since 2007, I believe, until they were in that courtroom together. When there were moments where Trump -- we found out later, was actually his attorney was being scolded by the judge, he was cursing audibly, could she hear any of that, or did -- what did she say about what it was like to be in the room with him? BREWSTER: You know, she was pretty nonplussed by him. She really didn't pay much regard to him. She did hear the statement that he made a couple of times to some of her testimony, but pretty much -- COLLINS: She heard him cursing in the courtroom? BREWSTER: I don't know if she heard him cursing, but she heard him responding audibly, but I don't think she -- that impacted her at all. COATES: They were clearly trying to make her feel shamed in some way by her profession. She seemed completely unfazed by that, entering the courtroom saying her name was to be addressed as Stormy Daniels. Were there moments that she had been prepared that they would attack her in that way? And do you think that her response was in line with how she truly felt? BREWSTER: I think Stormy was Stormy on the stand. And she's genuine. She's very bright. She's quick-witted. And I think she came across as genuine and open and exposed as she intended to be. And I think the jury saw that. TOOBIN: Clark, there was a lot of talk in the testimony about Stormy's finances. And one of the things in her finances is because Michael Avenatti filed this failed lawsuit against Trump, the judge assessed attorney's fees against her. She now owes Donald Trump something like $670,000. What's going to happen? Is she going to pay that? Can she pay it? Is there any way to fight it? What's going to happen in that? BREWSTER: Well, I think it's a non-issue for this trial. They tried to impeach her with it. [20:40:02] But keep in mind the story that she told in that courtroom factually was before there was any judgment. The judgment was inconsequential with regard to trying to impeach her testimony. With regard to that judgment, it's patently unfair. But that's what happens in a defamation case when the SLAPP statute is applied. The attorney's fees are almost automatic. They weren't appealed timely. Before I got involved, the main case was, but not the attorney's fees. So we were hampered in trying to deal with that. But in the NDA case, which is really the subject of her testimony in the courtroom, she won across the board. We were awarded attorney's fees every step of the way. We didn't get Avenatti's billing because he wouldn't cooperate. So the fee was less. It was about $100,000 that came off that. But we'll fight in Florida. And I think that we'll get some relief there. COOPER: Was she aware of that potential, that if she didn't -- that was not informed -- BREWSTER: Never explained. COOPER: Her attorney did not tell her that? BREWSTER: I don't want to speak for Michael Avenatti, but he never appreciated the risk of a SLAPP defense and never really informed her of it and really exposed her. AIDALA: Mr. Brewster -- BREWSTER: I think it's terrible. AIDALA: -- if I could ask, I'm just curious, if you feel comfortable telling us, about how many times would you say Stormy was prepared by the district attorney's office? BREWSTER: I don't have to say about. I can tell you exactly but they -- I will just tell you that they were very diligent, very careful in their examination, wanted corroboration with everything she told them and found it. But there were a number of sessions that were lengthy. And, you know, being a trial lawyer and doing a lot of criminal cases, I can tell you this prosecution team is first-rate. AIDALA: A number is more or less than five? More or less than -- BREWSTER: Five. PHILLIP: Between the direct and the cross, Stormy's demeanor on the stand was different from, you know, an outsider's perspective. How did she go from kind of that first day of testimony, first day and a half, to when she knew she was going to get grilled by the defense? I mean, how did she take that? What did you -- did you tell her anything to kind of get her ready for that moment? BREWSTER: Sure. Yes, we spent -- as you remember, we had Tuesday, then there was a dark day Wednesday. We came back on Thursday. But I knew her time to shine would be on cross because she's very, very a quick thinker. She's very, you know, seizes in on facts of the question and was very responsive. I think the direct was careful, and I think the cross was right up her alley, and she dealt with it well. COATES: Is she afraid now? BREWSTER: Yes, she has a lot of fear, and she really does. I mean, she was concerned about the security coming into New York. She wore a bulletproof vest every day. COATES: Under her clothes? BREWSTER: Yes, until she got to the courthouse. I can tell you that before she came on Sunday, I mean, she cried herself to sleep. I mean, she was very -- she was paralyzed with fear. Not of taking the stand or telling her story, but what might -- some nut might do to her. And I'm genuinely concerned about it as well. COATES: She had her daughter's necklace on in the courtroom. Was that some kind of a good luck charm for a mom? BREWSTER: Yes, it was a feeling that she had her daughter with her, and it was really cute that she did that. The daughter made that necklace. COOPER: The defense moved for mistrial during your client's testimony, arguing -- they tried to do it twice. What did you think of their argument? BREWSTER: Well, it really came into play with regard to the detail, some of the detail, and establishing her credibility and why she did certain things. And she said, I was fearful. And she was told by a lawyer, you need to hide in plain sight. The story's got to be memorialized one way or the other. And if something happens, they'll know who was motivated to do it. So that was the motivation, and I think the defense didn't like that. But keep in mind, in the court of public opinion, Trump has constantly said, she's a sleazebag, she's a liar, I only met her one time. And so that laydown, those facts, he thought were important enough for the court of public opinion. Why wouldn't they be important enough for a jury in this case? COOPER: When she was on the stand, she talked about feeling like she was going to black out, and she talked about the feeling in her hands. I think she talked about her head sort of swimming. That was sort of a level of detail she hadn't said before, to my knowledge. The prosecutor, in questioning her, said, is that a recovered memory? And I think she intimated that, yes, it was sort of a memory she'd -- that had come to her. Is that something -- was that something new that you had heard before? BREWSTER: No, no. You're talking about the time she came out of the bathroom and he was on the -- COOPER: Correct. BREWSTER: -- bed, right? Yes, she's always said that. You know -- COOPER: The defense made a big deal about -- clearly was upset by that and was accusing her of, you know, changing the story from the 2011 In Touch article, which she, Stormy, understand, said, you know, that was, look, it's In Touch magazine, you don't go into a level of detail with them essentially. [20:45:00] BREWSTER: That's right. And so the questions asked by the prosecution were very detailed and very delving into very specific issues. And, you know, some of the gossip magazine interviews that had been done before were just pretty superficial. But she's always said that. I heard it from the first occasion I spoke with her in depth on this matter. PHILLIP: Does it matter to her if Trump is convicted? And if so, why? BREWSTER: You know, she's -- privately to me, she feels bad for the guy because she's just empathetic. But publicly, I mean, she's been so damaged by him in the statements he's made about her that any person would feel some degree of revenge motive. So I think that she would be more inclined to hope that the jury does the right thing and finds him and convicts him. COLLINS: Well, and on the fear part, I mean, there was a moment where she had to turn to the judge because her address was on a piece of evidence that she was worried they were going to show to the courtroom and to have out there. I mean, is she concerned that they do have her address? BREWSTER: Well, honestly, she's very concerned about that. And because she lives in an area that might not have the level of security that she'd feel comfortable with. COOPER: Clark Brewster, thank you for your time. Appreciate it. BREWSTER: My pleasure. COOPER: Yes. We return with one of the sketch artists who was inside court today capturing history, her perspective on Cohen's testimony and Trump's demeanor next. (COMMERCIAL BREAK) [20:50:35] COOPER: Well they may despise one another, but Michael Cohen and Donald Trump appeared to both be on their best behaviors today. Who knows what could happen tomorrow? Cohen apparently appeared relaxed on the stand earlier. It seemed like Trump tried to zen out or zone out as best he could, often closing his eyes again. One of many scenes my next guest captured for us while in court today, veteran courtroom sketch artist Christine Cornell is with us again tonight. So you spent the day looking at Michael Cohen. Was there a certain detail you noticed most about him while he testified? CHRISTINE CORNELL, COURTROOM SKETCH ARTIST: Well, his face is really long and thin, kind of shockingly so. Yes, I mean, I think he's gotten smaller. PHILLIP: He said recently that he's been having trouble eating, so you've hit on something there. CORNELL: Say last but -- yes. COOPER: You first, I think, sketched him when he first pleaded guilty in 2018 to a variety of federal crimes. CORNELL: Actually, when he first pleaded not guilty. COOPER: Oh, really? CORNELL: Yes, yes. COOPER: So did you look back at those old sketches to prepare for today, or did you just go in fresh? CORNELL: Honey, I keep them up on my wall. COLLINS: Just Michael Cohen everywhere. COOPER: That's Cohen in 2018. CORNELL (?): Yes, so did I. COOPER: Yes, he looks younger there, obviously. So the last time we talked, you had talked about how the art of a sketch artist brings a lot of humanity to cases. I'm wondering, when you heard Cohen today, did you -- did the humanity of him come across? CORNELL: I started to think about that he was 57 years old, that Trump is 20 years his senior, that there must have been an incredible attraction to this, you know, mentor type, powerful guy, you know, kind of giving him, you know, the bolts of Zeus. You know, he could threaten to sue people, and they'd knuckle real fast because of what was behind him, you know? COOPER: I found it fascinating that he used to dress like Trump, you know, that he would wear the same, you know, flat colored tie. I mean, in a lot of the videos, they're basically wearing identical black overcoats. I mean, there was clearly a lot of sort of hero worship there. CORNELL: Yes, yes. And I think that was -- this betrayal was very, very deep. I mean, there was a time when Trump actually had all of his contacts in his phone shifted into Michael's phone. COOPER: Yes. CORNELL: I mean, what greater trust is there than, you know? COOPER: Has Trump changed over the course of this trial in terms of how you sketch him? CORNELL: Well, his hair isn't as golden. COOPER: It was very golden like two weeks ago when I was there. CORNELL: It was. COOPER: I was surprised. CORNELL: It's right now, it's down into the range of what happens to people's hair when they kind of fade a bit. COATES: Aside from the appearance of Michael Cohen becoming thinner, did you notice, in terms of drawing him in 2018 until now, a change in his demeanor? I mean, you talk about Zeus versus now. CORNELL: Yes, golly, he was so much bravado. COATES: In 2018? CORNELL: Yes, yes, way back when. And -- but then I also had the honor of drawing him when he was weeping and feeling very, very terribly sorry for himself as he pled guilty and saying he made terrible mistakes. You know, I was thinking today about the evolutionary thing on Michael Cohen. He's not evolved yet because he's still blaming Trump for everything that he did, you know? So that's just -- COOPER: And how much do you follow the testimony today? I mean, when you're -- we talked about this a little bit last time, but when you are in this, you know, you're doing the sketch, how much are you actually listening to the content? CORNELL: Oh, I'm listening to everything. Yes. COOPER: And that informs how you're doing it? CORNELL: I wish more. COOPER: Because it seems like you start a sketch and you can erase parts of it early on. And, I mean, how -- once you start it, are you set with what you're doing? CORNELL: Well, sometimes you might say to yourself, gee, you know, he's a little more agitated than that, and you want to get that across if you can. I mean, some crazy things happen with his eyebrows. One of them is just really up here and the other is really down here. And you can't exaggerate it, frankly. I mean, I get afraid of doing a caricature, but nope. TOOBIN: Christine, you are not sketching the jury, but you're in there with the jury, and you've seen a lot of juries. Can you make any observations about this jury compared to others? CORNELL: They're very intentive. They're very serious. They don't look at him when they walk into the courtroom. TOOBIN: You mean look at Trump? CORNELL: They do not look at him. And -- COOPER: Is that unusual in your experience? CORNELL: I think we only really think about that stuff when you're waiting for the verdict -- AIDALA: Yes. CORNELL: -- you know? AIDALA: Tell them (ph). When your heart is in your throat, and I'm like, I just hope Christine's going to draw me a picture that I want to keep, because this is going to be a good memory, not a bad memory. [20:55:08] CORNELL: Yes. Well, you know, they won't look at the -- at somebody they've convicted. They will look at you if they still have a connection to you and like you. So I just think this is, you know, I know we've talked about how a win for Trump would be a hung jury. Is there anybody on this jury, you know, who's not -- who's going to think for some reason or another that this isn't something they should convict on or can convict on. I don't know. PHILLIP: There were all these other characters also in the courthouse today, and Alvin Bragg showed up in some of the drawings, but there were the senators as well. I mean, how did that affect the vibe in the room for you? CORNELL: Well, they come in like a little power team. It's really like a ballet, you know? I know it all by the clicks of their heels. First come in the characters who set up the electronics, you know, and then here come the prosecutors, bl-bl-bl-bl-bl into the front. And then, you know, I mean, then the front row in front of me fills up with Alvin Bragg, and then the lawyers for whoever the witness is that day. COOPER: Yes. And then the prima ballerina not there? CORNELL: And then here comes, you know, Mr. Trump and his entourage. COOPER: What does he sound like coming in? CORNELL: He's pretty quiet himself, but the rest of them are very noisy. COOPER: I noticed he was quiet. He walked down the hall past me. I didn't even know he was walking past me. CORNELL: Yes. COLLINS: Anderson was looking at the sketch artist. COOPER: I was watching you. I was. I honestly was. Nobody told -- I was like, he was silent. Suddenly, there he was. Christine Cornell, it is great to have you. Thank you. CORNELL: OK. COOPER: Love talking to you. Laura Coates will be back at 10:00 p.m. Eastern. Her special coverage continues with Michael Cohen's former attorney, Lanny Davis, who's now his legal adviser. What he has to say about today's testimony next. (COMMERCIAL BREAK) The Source with Kaitlan Collins Aired May 13, 2024 - 21:00 ET THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED. (COMMERCIAL BREAK) [21:01:02] ANDERSON COOPER, CNN HOST: Just past 9 PM, here in New York. We begin the hour, after the first of what's expected to be several days of testimony, in the former President's hush money trial, by a critical witness, Michael Cohen. A former fixer and attorney for Donald Trump, he testified today about the then-candidate's alleged deep level of knowledge and involvement in the payments to Stormy Daniels, as well as the alleged reimbursement of Cohen for, Cohen says, fronting the cash. But Cohen's testimony is potentially undermined by a past that includes the felony conviction, and of equally significant credibility issues. We're joined now by Lanny Davis, famed as a former Special Counsel for then-President Clinton. He's now the former attorney and current legal adviser of Michael Cohen. Also former federal prosecutor, Elie Honig, is also joining us. Lanny, it's good to see you. What was your impression of how Michael Cohen did today? LANNY DAVIS, MICHAEL COHEN'S LEGAL ADVISER: Hi, Anderson. COOPER: And what can you tell us about how -- about the preparations that he has gone through, before taking the stand? DAVIS: Well, I wasn't there, of course. But I hear that he was controlled. And it reminded me of the long journey, painful at times, that I've had with Michael since June of 2018, when he finally talked to me, about turning his life and fessing up, and owning his lies, over 10 years with Donald Trump. And I kept saying, why should people believe you? That was in June of 2018. The next time he walked into a hearing room, on the record, on national and international television, looking at a sign on the wall, above Congressman Jim Jordan's head that said, Liar, Liar, Pants on Fire. And that was the congressional hearings that we expected him to be calm and factual, and tell the truth and own all his lies, and do that in real-time. And then, finally, being with him for the last few years, while prosecutors questioned him, and ultimately decided that they had this case. But following how they questioned him, and how they prepared, as Elie Honig knows, the construction of his case is about documents, and about text messages, and about corroboration, because of course, they know that credibility will be the line of attack, and that he's got to be backed up in everything that he says. And I think that's the way it's been developed. COOPER: What do you think was the key moment, today, from his testimony there, or the key takeaway? DAVIS: I wish I could have been in the courtroom. I decided it would be better to be in Washington, and not battle my way through the courtroom, and be available to do this for Michael. But what I gather was a key moment for him, was the control that he showed. I know, last night, right before Mother's Day dinner, we talked. And he was calm. But he was very anxious, and has been a lot of stress. Fear for his family, the President of the United States threatened his wife, his wife's father, his children have been threatened. So, he's been through a very bad ordeal, not to mention that he went to prison, and was in solitary confinement, after he refused to sign a piece of paper, promising not to write a book. This guy has been through a lot of pain. And all I heard, last night, was resolve to do what I said to him before his congressional testimony. Keep your voice down, tell the truth, and own everything that you did wrong for Trump. Don't defend and don't attack. Just own it. And the rest is going to be up to people to judge, including the jury. COOPER: I know a bunch of other folks, on the panel, have a question. This is -- my other -- only other question is -- oh, it's a question we asked Stormy Daniels' attorney just a second ago. Do you know how many times he worked with prosecutors and met with prosecutors to go over to prepare for today? I mean, it must have been a lot. DAVIS: Yes. I was with him every time. A lot of people made fun of me because I wore the same tan jacket all the time, Anderson. I had to try to get another jacket. We walked in and out of that prosecutor's office, first time to the first set of prosecutors. I first called Cy Vance, and asked him to come up to Otisville, the federal satellite penitentiary he was sent to, to interview him for the first time, secretly in prison. And that was in 2019. [21:05:00] So, count the years, how many sessions we've had, with the prosecutors, first, piecing together a financial fraud case. Ultimately, that went to the New York Attorney General. And now this case, which is what the-- COOPER: Can you say how many sessions that's been? DAVIS: 100 or more. COOPER: Yes. DAVIS: And sometimes, hours and hours at an end. So, if I counted them up, over five years, at least 100 or more. COOPER: You definitely need another jacket. DAVIS: I mean, I was there. So, it was painful. COOPER: Yes. DAVIS: Yes. Thank you, Anderson. COOPER: I know that Kaitlan probably has some questions. DAVIS: My wife is-- KAITLAN COLLINS, CNN HOST: Lanny, I-- DAVIS: Go ahead. COLLINS: Two questions for you. One, you said earlier to Wolf Blitzer that every word of Michael Cohen's testimony will be corroborated. But is there a way to corroborate what he testified to today, one of the biggest moments there at the end, where he said that Trump did approve the agreement that he and Allen Weisselberg had come to, of how he would be repaid? DAVIS: Well, I think we had Mr. McConney verify that he was aware of the true-up of those numbers. That is Allen Weisselberg's handwriting. And articulated that was verified and authenticated. COLLINS: But the Trump approval part. DAVIS: Well, the approval of Allen Weisselberg writing it up, and Trump knowing that he was not paying legal expenses. Rudy Giuliani said that on television. Donald Trump had first said he knew nothing about the Stormy Daniels matter. He denied the affair. But the fact of the legal expenses is going to be the key fact that the jurors just have to use their common -- their commonsense. Jurors, who go to bed at night, and don't see snow on the ground, and wake up in the morning, and see snow on the ground, have not seen it snow. But they use their commonsense. There's no other reasonable alternative. Donald Trump, in the Oval Office, why doesn't this shock us? It shocked me, the first time Michael told me. And it was before the congressional hearing. I said, how did you get paid Michael, the money that you laid out for Stormy Daniels? He said, oh, he wrote me checks. When? While in the Oval Office, when I visited him as President. He wrote you checks in the Oval Office? Where are those checks? Oh, well, they're at home. Well, could you ask Laura to take a photograph and send them to my phone, so I can get them to the congressional committee? So, what is the explanation that Donald Trump would say, why he wrote $35,000 checks, from a personal bank account, while he was a sitting president? COLLINS: Yes. Well-- DAVIS: Unless he testifies? And I invited him today to testify. He said he would testify. Why won't he testify, unless Michael is telling the truth, and he's afraid to testify? COLLINS: Yes, I have a feeling he's not going to get on the stand. But I do want to just remind everyone, in this one moment, because you bring up the Oval Office, and-- DAVIS: No, I agree with you. COLLINS: And I actually asked Donald Trump, about Michael Cohen, in the Oval Office. This was after the FBI had raided his home, and his office, and Trump had been saying publicly that The New York Times was trying to get Michael Cohen to flip on him. And just, you can see the level of anger, in Trump's face, as he doesn't answer these questions. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) COLLINS: Mr. President? Did Michael Cohen betray you? DONALD TRUMP (R), FORMER U.S. PRESIDENT AND 2024 PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: Thank you very much. Thank you. (CROSSTALK) UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Thank you everybody. COLLINS: Mr. President, are you worried about what Michael Cohen is going to say to prosecutors? TRUMP: Thank you. (CROSSTALK) COLLINS: Are you worried about what is on the other tapes, Mr. President? (END VIDEO CLIP) COLLINS: Obviously, after that, Trump had his aides ban me from the White House. But I just wonder what you -- what you think it was like for Michael Cohen, to be there in the room with Donald Trump, today, and for Donald Trump to listen to that testimony? DAVIS: Well, honestly, I listened to Michael's voice, last night. And he sounded relieved to me, unburdened, because he finally, after all this time, he's finally going to be able to tell the truth. What happens to Mr. Trump, whether he's acquitted or convicted is really not my concern. Nor it should be anybody's concern. It's up to a jury. That's our jury system. And if he's acquitted, then I accept that. But what I wanted was for Michael, as his lawyer, to tell the truth and get his life back. And when he called me, and he said he was doing this, for his wife and his family, and his country, I believed him, because I knew he was only opening the door to a lot of suffering. He was going to go to jail. He was going to be vilified by Mr. Trump and all of his supporters. And he's faced nothing but pain. But I think there's something relieving about telling the truth, and going through the pain of telling the truth. And that's what I hear -- heard in his voice, last night. ELIE HONIG, CNN SENIOR LEGAL ANALYST: Lanny, it's Elie here. Good to see you. It's been a little bit. I just wanted to follow-up. DAVIS: Hi, Elie. HONIG: So, almost exactly 12 hours ago, I asked you, is Michael Cohen going to testify that Donald Trump approved these payments, in what you had termed the sort of mob-boss-style, the general go-ahead-and- get-it-done? Or is he going to say that Donald Trump specifically authorized these specific retainer payments? [21:10:00] You said 12 hours ago, it was going to be the mob-boss-style. But actually, Michael Cohen did the opposite. He gave specific testimony. He finished up his testimony, by saying there was a specific time, when Allen Weisselberg and I met with Donald Trump, laid out the retainer payments. DAVIS: No. HONIG: And he said, do it. Were you surprised by that? DAVIS: No. Sorry, Elie. I either misspoke, I didn't speak clearly, or I'm just plain tired. No, of course, I've heard Michael tell me that it was very specific. The understanding was, he waited and waited. David Pecker and the people at the National Enquirer were telling him, you got to pay. There was panic setting in, as Election Day approached. And finally, Michael was waiting and waiting. And then, he got the instruction. Go ahead and pay it. No question. But he also many times got the code from Donald Trump, and lots of other incidents that he testified to, in his congressional hearing. So, I think I was referring to that Elie. JEFFREY TOOBIN, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: Lanny, let me ask you, just a question about the charges, in this case. This is a case, about false business records, prepared by the Trump Organization. And this was something I was a little unclear about, from the testimony today. Does Michael Cohen know specifically how Donald Trump caused false business records to be made? Or did he just take the money and assume that false business records were made? DAVIS: I'm not aware, in all the hours that I spent with him, which are over 100 hours in this prosecutors' room, that he saw the recording of those business records as legal expenses, which made them fraudulent and, of course, enhances the 34 counts into felonies as a means of concealing the crime that I don't think there's any doubt that he was motivated for political reasons. Everybody -- I just don't get that argument on that any longer. And of course, I'm trying to give him the benefit of the doubt, because he's innocent until he's proven beyond a reasonable doubt, Jeff. But on the actual recording of the expenses, I think it's more like the famous circumstantial evidence test that I said earlier. He knew they weren't legal expenses. That is certain. And those numbers were recorded as legal expenses. So, is he going to argue that he didn't know they were recorded as legal expenses, when he knew he was writing checks from the Oval Office to reimburse a crime? And that is what the jury has to use its commonsense about, and the old song that I mentioned. If you go to sleep at night, there's no snow on the ground. You wake up in the morning, there's snow on the ground. There's no direct evidence that it snowed. This jury is going to have to use its commonsense. Did Donald Trump really lie about there being legal expenses, and then they recorded it as legal expenses, and it wasn't, because of his instruction, that there should be a concealment of the real crime, which was the crime that Michael Cohen went to jail for, which is paying money, for political reasons, right before an election. COOPER: Yes. Lanny Davis, I really appreciate your time tonight. Thank you. DAVIS: Could I say one thing, Anderson? COOPER: Sure. DAVIS: Go Yale. It's been a long time since I've said that to you, so. Go Yale. COOPER: You have a good night. Thank you. DAVIS: Thank you. COOPER: Everyone else, stay with us. We have the full transcript from today's testimony coming up, Michael Cohen testifying on the fallout of the Access Hollywood tape. Plus, the former President brought an entourage of Republicans with him today to say the things a gag order prevents him from saying. That's ahead. (COMMERCIAL BREAK) [21:17:58] COOPER: The full transcript of today's testimony, by Michael Cohen, is out. He became the latest witness to testify just how scared the former President and 2016 campaign staff was, when the Access Hollywood tape surfaced. One former aide, who worked at the RNC, when the tape came out, previously testified that members there were rattled, and that she remembers conversations about possibly needing to replace Trump, as the Republican presidential candidate. Today, Cohen gave more testimony about the fallout. And John Berman joins us with some of those transcripts. JOHN BERMAN, CNN ANCHOR: Yes. It was really the Stormy Daniels matter, following Access Hollywood that according to Michael Cohen enraged Donald Trump, or really set him off. He's describing a moment, when Stormy Daniels people is to be Keith Davidson and Dylan Howard from the Enquirer, came forward and said Stormy Daniels is looking for some money here. Hoffinger, the prosecutor says, did you tell him, Donald Trump, what you had heard from Dylan Howard and Keith Davidson? Cohen says, yes. Hoffinger says, and what was his reaction? Cohen says, he was really angry with me: I thought you had this under control. I thought you took care of this. I expressed to Mr. Trump: We did, 2011. When the Stormy Daniels matter first came up. Cohen says, I have no control over what she goes out and does. And he expressed to me: There is a previous denial. Just take care of it. There was a lot going on at the campaign at the time. He was like: Just take care of it. Hoffinger asks, did he say anything to you at the time about how this might be viewed if it got out? Cohen says yes. HOFFINGER: What did he say, in substance? Cohen: He said to me: This is a disaster, total disaster. Women are going to hate me. Because this is really a disaster. Women will hate me. Guys may think it's cool, but this is going to be a disaster for the campaign. HOFFINGER: What, if anything... did you understand him to mean by "women will hate this," and what his concern was. Todd Blanche says, objection. Judge overruled. Michael Cohen says, he was polling very poorly with women and this, coupled with the previous Access Hollywood tape, he just stated: This a disaster, and get control over it. HONIG: I think we can put this particular aspect of this case to bed. I mean, it obviously was motivated by the campaign, the payoffs. Every single witness has said it. It makes perfect commonsense. This was Michael Cohen saying nothing new that everybody hasn't said before. [21:20:00] And yes, there's a couple snippets, where people said well, he was worried -- Trump was worried about Melania. He was worried about his family situation. That's fine. That doesn't cancel out that they've shown, I think more than adequately, that there was a campaign motive here. I just don't see any basis to say that there was no concern with the campaign. How could that even be? ARTHUR AIDALA, NEW YORK CRIMINAL DEFENSE ATTORNEY: Well, Elie, doesn't hearing this? And Jeff? HONIG: Yes. AIDALA: Doesn't hearing this ring this bell about attorney-client privilege? What -- how is -- how is -- he's representing him. I am the -- I am the lawyer to the President. I am his private lawyer, and we're having these private conversations. How does this? How does this come out there? COLLINS: Well he's no longer an attorney, so. HONIG: Yes. ABBY PHILLIP, CNN HOST: Well he committed a crime. TOOBIN: Crime-fraud exception. (CROSSTALK) TOOBIN: Crime-fraud exception. AIDALA: OK. PHILLIP: He committed a crime. AIDALA: So, there's a crime-fraud exception. And here's the only way that comes in. Because now you have two lawyers on the jury, who may know of this. The only way that crime-fraud exception comes in, is the judge has to -- had to have ruled beforehand, that there was some -- that that it fits into the crime-fraud exception. So now, the lawyers, if the lawyers know their stuff, the way my colleagues here do, in their mind, they're like, well, the only reason why we're hearing this is because the trial judge has already ruled that there must have been some crime here that there's -- now there's an exception to the attorney-client privilege. That's the only way we're hearing this. HONIG: I actually-- COLLINS: Well, one, Michael Cohen's no longer an attorney. He was disbarred as a part of this plea deal. AIDALA: That doesn't matter. That doesn't matter. COLLINS: But secondly, to that point, Michael Cohen's, not the first person to testify to this. And this is a way that you saw the prosecution handling this today is a lot of what Michael Cohen testified to, texts that he read, calls that he backed up, were ones that the jury had already seen. They might have been aware of. AIDALA: That doesn't matter. He can't say it. COLLINS: But Hope Hicks has already testified that Trump was worried about what was going to happen with the election. We've heard that from David Pecker, as they anticipated that women were going to be a problem. AIDALA: But he can't say it. Hope Hicks is not his lawyer. Michael Cohen is his lawyer. COLLINS: But -- but he said it. So, I mean, he said it, and the jury heard it. So it doesn't nullify it. HONIG: It's a good question. I think the answer is this attorney- client privilege has been very much waived by both parties. PHILLIP: Yes. HONIG: I think Trump and Cohen have long ago suspended any claim that they're still covered by a privilege. They've both talked, at length, publicly, in front of Congress, here in this trial to prosecutors, about what was said. So, I think this has been very much waived, meaning given off by both parties. COLLINS: He testified before Congress for five hours. HONIG: Exactly. Exactly. COLLINS: Like it's-- HONIG: Like it's long gone. Yes. TOOBIN: What I don't understand -- I mean, what I don't understand in advance, and we'll see, is I understand that you can point out that Michael Cohen has this history of lying. You say he lied to his wife. But which parts of his testimony will they try to go after? That's what I find curious, because I think so much of his testimony is bolstered by other witnesses. You can say, he's a terrible person. You can say he's a convicted perjurer. But what is the testimony before this jury that's false. That's a harder part. AIDALA: Well what-- TOOBIN: Oh, you have a list here. AIDALA: So, I have a little bit of the charge. It's the sample charge. I don't know if this is exactly what the judge is going to read. TOOBIN: Right. AIDALA: But this is the part of it. If you find that anyone has intentionally testified falsely, as to any material fact, you may disregard that witness' entire testimony. TOOBIN: I-- AIDALA: Or you may disregard so much of it, as you find was untruthful. There's also a part here that says, did the witness have a conscious bias, hostility, or some other attitude that affected the truthfulness of the witness' testimony? TOOBIN: Arthur, all that-- AIDALA: A jury could take that into consideration. TOOBIN: All that -- all that is true. But the question is, was the money a reimbursement? I mean, that's the -- it's just seems to me that so much of this case is proven-- AIDALA: OK. So-- TOOBIN: --even if -- even if Michael Cohen is a terrible person. AIDALA: OK. So, let me ask you this question. I wanted to ask this to Lanny Davis. What should Donald Trump have written down? And so first of all, we saw the checks. On the checks, it does not say legal fee. It's just a fee. It's just an amount of money to Michael Cohen. So, it doesn't say for legal fee. TOOBIN: Not on the check, yes. AIDALA: On the check. It doesn't say legal fee. TOOBIN: No, I agree with that. AIDALA: So, it could be that hey, I'm reimbursing him, and this is part of the reimbursement. So what should he have said? Don't forget, it's a non-disclosure agreement. So what you don't want it to say is reimbursement to pay hush money to Stormy Daniels. So what should it have been logged under? What words should have been put in the books? TOOBIN: Something other than a lie, which is that it was a retainer. AIDALA: It doesn't say -- no one said it says retainer. It says a legal fee. He's paying his lawyer back for money that his lawyer paid out to. TOOBIN: Well the phrase on the -- on the stubs is retainer. AIDALA: OK. TOOBIN: That's the word, retainer. AIDALA: OK. TOOBIN: And it's not a retainer. AIDALA: You're right. It is not a retainer. But it could be considered a legal fee, when it's a lawyer, who laid out their money for you. And now you're paying the lawyer back. BERMAN: I will say, Arthur, that throughout the testimony, what you do see is Cohen and others testifying that Trump was aware of many of the specifics of what was going on. And there was another element of that, in the testimony today. He's talking about setting up the accounts, where the ultimate payments came from. [21:25:00] The prosecutor says, did you call Mr. Trump before you went and set up the account, to make a transfer? Cohen says, yes. Hoffinger says, what, in substance, did you discuss with him on these two calls? For which there are call records for. Cohen says, I wanted to ensure, once again, he approved what I was doing because I required approval from him on all of this. That's what the sum and substance of the conversation was, laying out exactly what was going to happen, and what was being done in order to ensure the story didn't get sold to the Daily Mail or somebody else. Hoffinger, did you let him know you were going across the street and you were going to get the account set up and make the payment? Cohen says, yes, ma'am. Would you have made that payment to Stormy Daniels without getting a signoff from Mr. Trump? Cohen says, no. Hoffinger asks, why not? Cohen says, because everything required Mr. Trump's signoff. On top of that, I wanted the money back. HONIG: OK. So, this is really important testimony. And this is a good example of where Michael Cohen is, and is not corroborated. Throughout these dates, October 26th, about two weeks before the election, the prosecution did a masterful job of weaving in various forms of corroboration. There's the phone records that John talked about. There is certificates from the bank. There is emails that backup that that's exactly what Michael Cohen did that day However, to Jeffrey's point, how are they going to cross-examine? How are they going to suggest Michael Cohen's lying? They're going to say what you actually discussed, the content of that phone call with Donald Trump, all we have for that is Michael Cohen's word. And folks on the jury, can you trust him at his word? Yes, there's other stuff. Scaffolding is a good expression you used earlier. There's scaffolding around him. But to fill that in, you have to take the word of this man at face value. That's what-- TOOBIN: And-- HONIG: They're going to say, he's not a fabulist. He's not inventing things. But he's an opportunist-- TOOBIN: Well you're right. HONIG: --who speaks things. TOOBIN: You're right. But and -- and just to emphasize that point. HONIG: Yes. TOOBIN: The most provocative and interesting parts of his testimony today, were about conversations he had with Donald Trump. HONIG: Yes. TOOBIN: And for that, there is no corroboration. PHILLIP: Unless Donald Trump takes the stand, which we all know he's probably not going to take. TOOBIN: Don't hold your breath. COOPER: But it was interesting to hear from him how-- PHILLIP: But that is a key thing. COOPER: --how much he would sort of go into Donald Trump's office, or he says-- PHILLIP: Yes. COOPER: --he would go into Donald Trump's office, even after, one phone call, to fill in Trump on something that Trump wanted to hear all the details of, all these steps along the way, for just about everything Michael Cohen says. PHILLIP: He is-- TOOBIN: And that goes to the standard issue that comes up in cooperating, you know, with cooperators all the time. And your point about, oh, he's a terrible person, he's a liar? Well, who was inside and outside of Donald Trump's office for 10 years? I mean, who-- AIDALA: The judge is going to charge the jury, motive. You may consider whether a witness had or did have a motive to lie. They're going to show a picture of him wearing a T-shirt that has Donald Trump behind bars. Does this guy have bias? Does this guy have a motive to put him behind jail? COLLINS: You know? TOOBIN: Absolutely. AIDALA: He's telling the whole world that he does. TOOBIN: Absolutely. COLLINS: And it will be interesting to see how he handles that on cross. Because today, he made a point, at several junctures, where he would make fun of himself, where he would say, yes, I had an ego. That's why I thought that I should get a job in the White House. Or yes, I did want to benefit from being Donald Trump's personal attorney. And I knew it would come with a lot of opportunities, where maybe Donald Trump wasn't paying me once he was president, but I was going to get all this other access. He took these small moments, to kind of make fun of himself, or criticize himself. And the question is, how the jury will discern that? They're essentially expressionless, during this entire testimony. You cannot tell. COOPER: Yes. COLLINS: They're paying such close attention. They're taking copious notes. But you cannot tell what they are thinking-- COOPER: Yes. COLLINS: --or how they're taking it. COOPER: John Berman, thanks very much. I appreciate it. Coming up. The former President brought some political backups with him, to court today, including Republican senators, J.D. Vance, and Tommy Tuberville. We'll talk about why, with the Democratic strategist, James Carville, next. (COMMERCIAL BREAK) [21:32:54] COOPER: On arguably the biggest day of his criminal trial, the former President brought his biggest entourage, including a number of Republican lawmakers, and at least one vice presidential hopeful, Senator J.D. Vance of Ohio. They took the microphones, during the lunch break to denounce the proceedings. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) SEN. J.D. VANCE (R-OH): What's going on inside that courtroom is a threat to American democracy, ladies and gentlemen. We cannot have a country, where you get to prosecute your political opponents instead of persuading voters. (END VIDEO CLIP) COOPER: Vance went to attack President Biden, who to be clear, has nothing to do with this trial, and take shots at Michael Cohen, which the defendant of course is gagged from doing. Joining us now, Democratic strategist, James Carville. So James, I mean, should anyone be surprised that -- I mean, the former -- Trump's running mate auditions have moved to the courthouse. JAMES CARVILLE, DEMOCRATIC STRATEGIST: Not at all. So, well I'm surprised it took people so long to get there. I mean, he got cameras. He got publicity. He got to suck up to Trump. Of course, there's zero evidence at present Biden had anything to do with this prosecution. But it was just done in terms of -- well my favorite though, Anderson, was Senator Tuberville from Alabama, who said that Manhattan criminal court was depressing. I guess he was expecting My Cousin Vinny to show up or something. COOPER: Yes. Do you think-- CARVILLE: Criminal courts tend not to be the most-- COOPER: Yes, they're not cheerful places. CARVILLE: --bright places in the world. COOPER: Yes. CARVILLE: Yes. COOPER: Do you think a guilty verdict or for that matter, a hung jury would hurt the former President politically? I mean, nothing else seems to. The latest polls from The New York Times-- CARVILLE: No. COOPER: --show him ahead of President Biden, in a bunch of key swing states. CARVILLE: Right. I haven't seen -- you know, in the last year, we've had indictments, we've had wars, we've had foreign policy crisis. And the polls haven't changed. So, I don't think anybody can say with much confidence. Well I think a hung jury if anything will probably help him. [21:35:00] But weirdly enough, that it just -- the race just seems to be stuck in a place, and it's been stuck there for a while. I don't know. No predictions that things will change, in the field (ph) so far to. Well but all I can tell you is that -- I don't know. But I think a hung jury would help him, right. COOPER: Yes. CARVILLE: I do think it'd give him more enthusiasm. I mean, drawing these huge crowds. And it's quite concerning out there. COLLINS: James, it's Kaitlan Collins. And first, I have to tell you, Roll Tide. CARVILLE: Hi, Kaitlan. COLLINS: Because I see your Tiger shirt that you're wearing right now. CARVILLE: Right. COLLINS: But I have to ask you, speaking of Senator Tuberville, from Alabama. He clearly is someone, who has been angling for maybe a cabinet position, if Trump wins, and is back in the White House. J.D. Vance obviously would like to be Vice President. Others in this realm are going to show up. We know Vivek Ramaswamy, Marco Rubio, I'm sure we'll see Doug Burgum, maybe at some point. What do you make of the fact that all these people, who are either trying out to be Donald Trump's vice presidential pick, or in his cabinet, are in that second row of the courtroom? CARVILLE: Well what's really amazing is the lack of support. I think his son, Eric, was the only family member. And he kind of showed up for a day. I don't think his wife will get within the same state he's in. But it's been amazing that no one has figured out, what Senator Vance and Senator Tuberville. For them, they got more publicity today than they've gotten maybe all year. And I suspect that they're going to -- we're going to see more support for him, at the trial because people understand -- they had figured out rather late that the cameras are there, and they can get exposure. But what's really surprising is the lack -- and the Trump supporters don't show up. There was one person sitting out there supporting him. So, he is a pretty lonely guy in that courtroom. COLLINS: Yes, it's only been maybe 10 supporters outside the courthouse, even though anyone can go. CARVILLE: Yes. COLLINS: And Eric Trump, you make a good point, because Eric Trump has been the only family member, who's been there. He was back there again, today. I've seen him probably three times. But I mean, politically speaking, you would always see a candidate's spouse next to them, in a moment like this. And I think, obviously, Melania Trump is not a typical politician's spouse, by any means. CARVILLE: No. No. No. COLLINS: But what does it say that, that she isn't there? CARVILLE: Well, it says a lot. I mean, the whole thing with Barron with going to be a delegate. And she came in and said, no. I don't -- I'm not privy to any of the private details of their marriage. But it doesn't seem to be a very -- from a distance, it doesn't seem to be remotely a happy or close one. But that's really none of my business. But it is amazing. I mean, if you are on a criminal trial, you would think your family would show up, or your friends, or there would be some kind of support for you, emotional support and moral support. But it's really stunning, how little he's had until today. And I think the cameras will draw some more people there. COLLINS: How do you think President Biden should handle this? Should he be commenting on the trial more directly? Or they're obviously wary of doing so, given Trump is so directly tried to-- CARVILLE: Right. COLLINS: --to say that this is Biden's trial, even though it's obviously not? CARVILLE: It's not like this thing is not being covered. I mean, you don't need to throw an extra wild on the fire. I mean, it's blazing away now. And I think I agree that the President should stay away from it, shouldn't comment on it. But right now, he's got to try to move some numbers here. These polls are stuck in a ditch, and they've been that way for a while. COOPER: If the Access Hollywood tape didn't derail Trump's campaign in 2016, why would a case, involving business records with Stormy Daniels payoff, derail his campaign in 2024? CARVILLE: I don't know, Anderson. It's a good question. And I can't pretend that I know the answer to. I don't think anybody else can pretend that they know the answer to it. You would think all of these indictments, you'd think that the COVID response, you would think everything that the January the 6th, I was firmly convinced that it was done in by January 6th. More people than ever think it's a tourist visit now. So, I'm totally flummoxed is how this thing stays the same. But I do know one thing. It just stays the same. And nothing -- the more things happen, the more things stay the same. And what Democrats are doing -- the President's doing terrible with voters under 30, with -- and with Black voters, which are pretty key to this whole equation here. So hopefully, we can get something going here, in the next four or five months. But right now, it's not looking that promising. PHILLIP: James, it's Abby Phillip here. I wonder, I mean, now that -- now we kind of know-- CARVILLE: Hey, Abby. [21:40:00] PHILLIP: Hey. I mean, now we kind of know that this might be maybe the only trial that we see of Donald Trump this year. Is it time for Democrats to move on, and look at the fundamentals of this race, and not see these trials as somehow this X-factor that's going to be-- CARVILLE: Right. PHILLIP: --have a huge influence, on how this thing turns out in November? CARVILLE: Yes. I think -- yes, I think -- I think they had -- we have to. Because the fundamentals, right now, frankly, are depressing. And we have all of these events, and they changed little or nothing. I mean, maybe there's some evidence that Trump might be a point and a half or two points weaker than he was a year ago. But you'd have to really squint to see that happening. And I don't see that the numbers for the President moving. Now, on the upside is, we are doing pretty well, in these Senate races. And that's been pretty consistent over several months. I've seen a lot of Senate polling, and that does look good. But right now, in the presidential race, this is a sticky wicket out there. That's all I can say. PHILLIP: If there are all these characters, parading to the courthouse, to maybe audition for Trump's VP? There are some who were here, this week. CARVILLE: Right. PHILLIP: Some who were down in Mar-a-Lago, over the last couple weeks. Which one do you think poses the greatest threat here to the Biden campaign at this point? CARVILLE: I don't think -- I don't think that Trump's vice presidential pick is going to mean a lot. I mean, I think he picked Pence, because he thought it probably would put some validity, thought he'd shore up the kind of religious-right, a little bit. PHILLIP: And there's some -- there's some argument. CARVILLE: I don't think that needs any more shoring up. PHILLIP: There is some argument that it did in 2016, help him in that respect. CARVILLE: I said -- I said -- yes, it could have helped him some. I said, yes, I though he picked to shore up. And it might have helped -- it might have helped some on the margins. But I don't -- you know, and people come up, and they speculate, it could be this person or that person. I don't see any vice presidential pick, changing the basic equation that we're looking at right now. I really don't. I mean, what I'm hoping happens is recovery keeps going on, and it keeps digging deeper down, and people start feeling it. But right now, it's a recovery that people are denying that exist. And it's a good word is a recovery, because you have come back from something, so we should call it a recovery. But our economic messaging is not breaking through. It's been counterproductive so far. COOPER: And James Carville, great to have you. Appreciate it. CARVILLE: Thank you, Anderson. Thank you. It was a great panel. Thank you. COOPER: All right. CARVILLE: Appreciate it. COOPER: Glad you're in New Orleans. How the jury is receiving Cohen's testimony so far, and whether they'll ultimately buy the words from an admitted liar, reaction from a trial and jury consultant next. (COMMERCIAL BREAK) [21:46:52] COOPER: Today, Michael Cohen also laid out details of the alleged catch-and-kill scheme, involving a former Playboy model, Karen McDougal. Here's what he said, he told Trump after learning McDougal was looking to sell a story about their alleged relationship. Quote, "I asked him if he knew who Karen McDougal was, if he knows anything about the story. His response to me was "She's really beautiful." I said "OK, but there is a story that's right now being shopped."" Prosecutor Susan Hoffinger then asked him, did Mr. Trump ask you to take any action with respect to the story? Cohen replied, yes. Hoffinger says, what did he ask you, in general, to do? Cohen answers, make sure it doesn't get released. Here's what McDougal said to me in 2018. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) COOPER: Do you think the presidential race had anything to do with this deal getting done? KAREN MCDOUGAL, ALLEGES AFFAIR WITH DONALD TRUMP: When I'm looking back at it now, possibly yes. COOPER: If Donald Trump hadn't been running for President, do you believe this deal would have been made with AMI, knowing what you know now? MCDOUGAL: Probably not, no, probably not. COOPER: You're pretty convinced -- you're convinced now, this was an effort to do a favor for Donald Trump, in the last few months of the presidential race? MCDOUGAL: Unfortunately, yes. (END VIDEO CLIP) COOPER: It's tough cutting from that shot of me in 2018, to this. I'm just saying, ravaged by time, as John Oliver once said. Joining us now is jury and trial consultant, Renato Stabile. Renato, appreciate you being with us. RENATO STABILE, JURY AND TRIAL CONSULTANT, ATTORNEY: Thanks. COOPER: One of the things that the courtroom sketch artist, who was here, said, Christine Cornell, which is something a lot of us have noticed, being in the courtroom, is that the jury does not look at Donald Trump, when they come in and out. Does that -- do you read anything into that, as a jury consultant? STABILE: Juries typically do not look at defendants that often when they're coming in or out. But be sure they are watching his every move. So, when he is shaking his head, they are noticing. When he is muttering things under his breath, they are noticing. And he might not be doing himself any favors by doing that, because they're catching all of that, and they're thinking, all right, you want to say something? Take the witness stand. So, I don't know that it's such a great thing that he's doing it. One thing I'd be watching for though, as the jurors walk in and out are the two lawyers, buddy-buddies. COOPER: Yes. STABILE: Because that is something. Now, I'm not a believer in reading faces or reading body language. But something you can tell are what jurors are bonding with each other. And if the two lawyers are bonding, that's good for somebody. And if they're not bonding, that could show you that there's going to be some disagreements (ph). AIDALA: And what we do, Anderson, honestly, because we've -- I've tried several cases in that courthouse. There's only a couple places to go eat lunch around there. Now, I don't know if they're getting any extra security, because of this case. But typically, they don't. And it's interesting to see who's eating lunch with who, who -- just what Renato said. Who's going on the breaks with who, when they get a break? Who's going to get a soda with who? And you're trying to figure out. And then, you go back and you look at the sheets that Renato creates, and you're like, OK, well, this guy is a bus driver. And he's hanging out with this woman, who's an accountant. And you -- I mean, and the truth is, we don't know what the heck we're talking about. It's all like-- PHILLIP: Oh gosh. AIDALA: It's all like who knows who's going to say what to. STABILE: But remember, these people have been together now for weeks. So, personalities are kicking in. There are people that like each other. There are people for sure that do not like each other on that jury. COOPER: I-- PHILLIP: Are they talking to each other, before deliberations? HONIG: They're not supposed to. PHILLIP: Because they're not supposed to, right? STABILE: I mean, they're not supposed to discuss the case. PHILLIP: Yes. STABILE: But they have to talk about something, so. [21:50:00] COOPER: I don't have much experience in court. But I testified once in front of a jury. And I was interested that some of them were very attentive. Some of them clearly were bored by just not wanting to be there, and no interest in what I was saying. Watching this jury, as a spectator, two weeks ago, they were intensely watching this. None of them seemed bored to me. None of them seemed to be thinking about something else. STABILE: Well, this is riveting stuff. This is maybe the most exciting thing. COOPER: I thought my testimony was riveting as-- STABILE: Yes, no. COOPER: --well but-- STABILE: Not that your testimony wasn't riveting, I'm sure. But I mean, this is just such a -- this is a historical event-- COOPER: Right. STABILE: --that they're taking part of. And what you see is we haven't lost any jurors, which is extremely unusual, in a trial of this length. Nobody is going to drop if they can help it. TOOBIN: Renato, let me ask you about something that Arthur said very loudly, recently, is there's a jury. AIDALA: I'm supposed to be offended by that. TOOBIN: There's a jury-- AIDALA: I mean, I was just selling (ph) for Brooklyn. COOPER: By the way, you don't even need to. It's implied. AIDALA: Exactly. COOPER: He can fire up. COLLINS: He's just saying. TOOBIN: There's a-- (CROSSTALK) TOOBIN: There's a -- there's a jury instruction that says if someone lies about one thing, you can discredit all their testimony. STABILE: Right. TOOBIN: Do jurors do that? Or do they more pick and choose what they choose to believe? STABILE: Look, they kind of make their decision, and then they back into it. However, they're going to back into it right? They look at the case holistically. And then, if they have to pick and choose to reach their decision, that's what they're going to do. That's just the way it works. So-- COOPER: Do you find people going with their gut, like, I trust this person who testified. I don't trust this person. I like this person. I didn't like them, or I didn't like them, but I believe what they're saying, and going with that, rather than the minutiae of-- STABILE: I think -- I think people start with their gut, and then they back into the logic. I don't know that it's the logical progression that you might think it is. COOPER: Yes. STABILE: So, how they feel about Michael Cohen is going to have a big impact. But I think he did some interesting things today. One, he had an opportunity to say that Donald Trump either told him or didn't tell him that he had an intimate relationship with Stormy Daniels. And he didn't do that. And I know you, as a prosecutor probably would have said, well, if he's going to lie, he would have lied better. COOPER: Yes. STABILE: That was a perfect opportunity for him to say something to bury Donald Trump. And he didn't do it. That shows he's credible. COLLINS: What about eye contact? Because there were moments, where -- there were probably three moments, where he would really look at the jury. But there were a lot of moments where he'd to answer a question from the prosecutor. And then, she'd start asking another one. And then, he'd look at the jury, to kind of see like, how they -- how they took it. But he wasn't looking at them, as he was answering. Does that make a difference in how they -- if they trust them? STABILE: I advise witnesses, when they're testifying, do what's comfortable to you. Don't -- if you're not comfortable making eye contact with the jury, don't do it. If you feel more comfortable looking at the person that's questioning you, do that. It's really you have to be natural and authentic. That's the most important thing in testifying. HONIG: I'm a big believer, to Renato's point, in just the gut instinct. I think so much of this comes down to gut. I mean, I had an experience, where we -- once, we tried a case. We put on a really bad guy as a cooperator. And 10 of the 12 jurors just outright rejected him. Didn't like him. Thought he was scary, rejected his testimony. That jury hung, 10 wanted acquit. AIDALA: Yes, you got the hung jury, kid. HONIG: There you go. Yes. But wait. Wait for the ending though. AIDALA: You didn't get an acquittal, though, buddy (ph). HONIG: We retried it. And they convicted on everything, including on things that were solely based, uncorroborated on that cooperator's testimony, so. AIDALA: That's probably because they liked you. HONIG: Maybe. Well I mean that's-- AIDALA: And that's probably the second jury, just little bit, they felt closer to you. HONIG: But honestly, it could just be as simple as that. We like this lawyer. We don't like this lawyer. It's 12 human beings. We like this cooperator. AIDALA: Well actually-- COOPER: How big an obstacle is it-- HONIG: We don't like this cooperator. COOPER: --to have somebody, who has lied repeatedly in the past? HONIG: Well, here's the thing. STABILE: I mean, it's obviously a huge obstacle. But just because he's lied in the past, they could say that he's credible about this. Like I said, the Stormy Daniels thing, I think he did himself a favor. COOPER: Yes. STABILE: But I think there was -- there was one interesting thing that he said was the $375,000 that he was getting paid. If you do the math and divide that by 12, that's $31,000 and change. That sort of lines up with the $35,000 he was getting a month, which is what the Trump team is going to argue that these were legitimate payments for legal fees every month. COOPER: Yes. STABILE: So, I thought that was a very interesting thing, like you said. PHILLIP: I think the thing that, with this case, is that there's almost like a crystal-clear commonsense argument about what happened. But then, the legal part of it actually feels to me quite complex. And if you're on the jury, how do you think the jury is going to deal with that? There's a part that kind of seems obvious. Yes, this was about the campaign. Yes, Trump didn't want people to know. Yes, he didn't want to do it the right way, because it would have been illegal. But proving the elements of the crime, is the jury going to have a hard time with that? AIDALA: Yes. STABILE: I think they're going to struggle. But I think we all try to make decisions in the most straightforward and easy and simple way we can. And one way they're going to start that process is they're going to go into the jury room, and they're going to say, do you believe Michael Cohen? AIDALA: But Renato -- Renato, to your point? STABILE: And they're going to take a vote on that. AIDALA: You and I've worked on trials together. And I would be saying this, it doesn't matter that Donald Trump is sitting there, or if it was Joe Biden sitting there, I'd be saying the same thing. It's not going to be easy. This isn't the kind of cases that you see in state court, where it's straight-up bribery. What did he do? He told me, you do this, I'll give you this amount of money, like even the Menendez case down the block. STABILE: Right. [21:55:00] AIDALA: This is like complicated legal issues that basically what they're saying is two misdemeanors outside the statute of limitations. If you put them together, you get a felony that's inside of the statute of limitations. STABILE: Yes, but already -- but already-- AIDALA: That's complicated. STABILE: But the defense made it easy, because they're saying straight-up, these were $35,000 legal payments. You either believe that or you don't. If you don't believe it, they're going to convict him. COOPER: Well, let me, very quickly, would you have wanted two jurors on the -- two lawyers on this? STABILE: I am very squeamish about putting lawyers on any jury, unless you are really confident about what they're going to do. Look, we don't know the names of the jurors. The parties do. They know a lot more about them than we do. COOPER: Yes. STABILE: So, they might know something we don't. COOPER: Renato Stabile, thank you. Great to have your expertise. Thanks everyone. A programming note, before we hand off tonight. This Friday, at 360 special, my replay of my interview with Karen McDougal. As you just saw, I talked to her, back in 2018, right after the story broke of her alleged affair with the former President, something he denies. It's the only TV interview she's done. Watch the interview, this Friday, at 8 PM Eastern. The news continues, including CNN's special coverage of the Trump hush money trial, right after a break. (COMMERCIAL BREAK) CNN NewsNight with Abby Phillip Aired May 13, 2024 - 22:00 ET THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED. (COMMERCIAL BREAK) [22:00:42] ABBY PHILLIP, CNN HOST: Welcome to a special edition of NewsNight, the Trump Hush Money Trial. I'm Abby Phillip in New York alongside Laura Coates here. Five hours and eight minutes, that is how long the trial's most important witness spent on the stand today. Michael Cohen directly implicating Donald Trump, telling the jury dramatic and potentially critical facts when it comes to the prosecution's case against Trump. The jury watched intently. Their heads were swiveling back and forth between the prosecutor and the witness as the government led Cohen through a deliberate testimony. LAURA COATES, CNN HOST: Cohen actually traced his evolution, if you remember, from Trump's periphery to Trump's gopher to Trump's do everything fixer. And that included the alleged hush money deal designed to silence Stormy Daniels, a deal that Cohen testified Trump ordered him to make. The jury learned how Cohen called Trump, well, Mr. Trump, or more simply, the boss. His demeanor was measured throughout as he told the court how Trump avoided email. Too many people he said have gone down because of a paper trail Cohen recalled Trump saying. PHILLIP: And he also painted a picture of Trump as the micromanager, doling out tasks and demanding updates or becoming frustrated when he wasn't appraised of the up to the minute progress on various issues. Cohen told the jury everything that happened around Trump required his sign off. COATES: Tonight, we're going to take you actually inside the courtroom. We're going to page through all word for word the most tense, the most revealing, and really the most crippling testimony for the former president. PHILLIP: And then we're going to analyze where the prosecution won today, where the government missed some opportunities to bolster its case. There's a lot ahead. So let's start with Joey Jackson reading as Michael Cohen and Mercedes Colwin as Prosecutor Susan Hoffinger. This exchange here is about the payment itself. Take it away. MERCEDES COLWIN, CRIMINAL DEFENSE ATTORNEY: Now, after you learned from Dylan Howard and from Keith Davidson about the Stormy Daniels story and are wanting to publish that story and the conversations about purchasing that story, did you speak to Mr. Trump? JOEY JACKSON, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: I did. COLWIN: Can you tell us, first of all, why did you speak to Mr. Trump about it? JACKSON: Because it was a matter that affected him, and because that was what I always did, which was to keep him abreast of everything. COLWIN: Was this also a serious matter at that time? JACKSON: A very serious matter. COLWIN: Did you tell him what you had heard from Dylan Howard and Keith Davidson? JACKSON: Yes. COLWIN: And what was his reaction? JACKSON: He was really angry with me. I thought you had this under control. I thought you took care of this. I expressed to Mr. Trump, we did 2011. I have no control over what she goes out and does. And he expressed to me there in a -- there is previous denial. Just take care of it. There was a lot going on at the campaign at the time. He was like, just take care of it. COLWIN: Did he say anything to you at that time about how this might be viewed if it got out? JACKSON: Yes. COLWIN: What did he say in substance? JACKSON: He said to me, this is a disaster, total disaster. Women are going to hate me because this is really a disaster. Women will hate me. Guys may think it's cool but this is going to be a disaster for the campaign. COLWIN: What, if anything, did you understand about withdrawing? Why did you understand -- what did you understand him to mean by women will hate this and what his concern was? JACKSON: So, at the time, Mr. Trump was polling very, very low with women and -- COLWIN: You said very well. JACKSON: No, very poorly. I'm sorry. COLWIN: It's all right. I couldn't hear. JACKSON: He was polling very poorly with women and this, coupled with the previous Access Hollywood tape, he just stated this is a disaster and get control of it. COLWIN: Did you have any conversation with him about strategy in dealing with the story? JACKSON: I am sorry? COLWIN: Did you have any conversation, additional conversation with Mr. Trump about a particular strategy about how to control it and how to deal with it? JACKSON: He told me to work with David and get control over this, purchase the life rights. We need to stop this from getting out. COLWIN: Was there any conversation about pushing it to a period of time? [22:05:01] JACKSON: Yes. COLWIN: What was that? JACKSON: So, during the negotiation, to purchase and acquire the life rights, what he had said to me is what I want you to do is just push it out as long as you can. Just get past the election. Because if I win, it has no relevance, I will be president. If I lose, I don't even care. COLWIN: Did you bring up at the time the topic of his wife, Melania, in one of those conversations with Mr. Trump? JACKSON: I did. COLWIN: What did you say in substance to him? JACKSON: I said, and how are things going to go with upstairs? COLWIN: Were you concerned about that? JACKSON: I was. COLWIN: And what, if anything, did he say to you about that? JACKSON: Don't worry, he goes. He goes, how long do you think I will be on the market for? Not long. COLWIN: What did you understand that to mean? JACKSON: He wasn't thinking about Melania. This was all about the campaign. COATES: Abby, they're talking Oscars over there, I'm going to tell you right now. It also illustrates the motivation for the payment, but also you have to think about the implications. Let's dive into that. Take it away, guys. COLWIN: Can you read this email? JACKSON: It states, Michael, I have been charged by my client with forwarding the below message. We have a written settlement agreement, which calls for settlement payment to be sent by the end of business this past Friday, October 14th, 2016. No payment was received. We spoke on Friday, October 14th. And you stated that funds would be wired today, October 17, 2016. No funds have been received as of the sending of this email. My client informs me that she intends to cancel the settlement contract if no funds are received by 5:00 Pacific Time, PST, today, please call me if you have any questions, Keith. COLWIN: What was happening at this time with respect to this deal? JACKSON: My intent was to continue to delay it as per Mr. Trump's demand, and I clearly did not send funds to Mr. Davidson at the IOLA lawyer's account on this date. COLWIN: Did there come a time after that, again, still in October of 2016, that Mr. Trump, in substance, expressed to you that he understood he could no longer delay this transaction? JACKSON: Yes. COLWIN: And describe the conversation you had with him. JACKSON: He stated to me that he had spoken to some friends, some individuals, very smart people, and that it's $130,000. You're like a billionaire. Just pay it. There's no reason to keep this thing out there. So, do it. And he expressed to me, just do it. Go meet up with Allen Weisselberg and figure this whole thing out. COLWIN: Following that conversation with Mr. Trump, did you, in fact, have some discussions with Allen Weisselberg about trying -- JACKSON: Yes. COLWIN: -- to figure out about how the payment would be made? JACKSON: Yes. COLWIN: And what in substance did you discuss with Weisselberg and the different options? JACKSON: Well, that I had the opening of the company all set up. Now, it just needed to be funded, to which Weisselberg turned and said, can we get AMI to pay it? I said, no, they've already expressed to me they're not paying it. They said we need to come up with a way of how to fund it. I said, we need to do it immediately. COLWIN: At some point, did you have a conversation with Mr. Trump about the fact that you were willing to pay for it, at least initially? JACKSON: Yes, Allen and I spoke to Mr. Trump. We expressed to him that I was going to front the money for it, to which he was appreciative and good, good. COLWIN: Did you have a sense from Mr. Trump that you would end up being out the money or you would get actually paid back? JACKSON: He stated about it, don't worry about it. You will get the money back. COLWIN: Would you have ever paid for the NDA for Stormy Daniels on your own without an understanding that you would get paid back? JACKSON: No. COLWIN: Why not? JACKSON: It's $130,000. I was doing everything that I could and more in order to protect my boss, which was something I had done for a long time. But I would not lay out $130,000 for an NDA needed by somebody else. COATES: Well, let's bring in the rest of the panel here. I mean, that was good. That was a good rendition. It's important to do this, of course, because it is so important. You were in the courtroom, Abby. PHILLIP: Right. I was going to say, we were both there today. COATES: It brings it to life in a way to actually hear how it was being said. It's invaluable. PHILLIP: Yes. I mean, when we chop up some of these exchanges, we miss sometimes the big picture here. Stacy, I mean, this really needed to be the prosecution's best day. It needed to be the day that they got most of what they needed to bring this case home. What did you think were their home runs today? STACY SCHNEIDER, NEW YORK CITY CRIMINAL DEFENSE ATTORNEY: So Michael Cohen was the linchpin of what Trump knew and what Trump directed. [22:10:00] And all of the other witnesses that we've heard from so far, David Pecker from the National Enquirer, Keith Davidson, Stormy Daniels' lawyer, Hope Hicks and his former assistants, that was to shore up this big day of Michael Cohn testifying because they were all giving the background details, because Michael Cohen, as everyone has been discussing this entire trial, has his credibility issues, his conviction record. So, what they managed to accomplish today with Michael Cohn is exactly what they've been teeing up, setting up, which is Trump was in charge, Trump -- he did this at Trump's direction, he didn't go rogue and do this on his own to impress his boss. They also established again through Michael Cohen, like they did through all of the witnesses throughout, that Trump is a micromanager, the buck stops with him, he approves all the deals. And Michael Cohen now filling in the flesh of the conversations that he had with Donald Trump about this alleged scheme shows Donald Trump's alleged motive, intent, and actual participation, because the statements come in not as hearsay from Donald Trump but actually as admissions by a party opponent. Adam, I want to bring you in here, especially because, I mean, up until now, there have been a lot of pre-corroboration of Michael Cohen. They know very well. They had to dot their I's, cross their T's, have a paper trail in front of him before he took the stand, but he is the ultimate storyteller of the moment we're talking about. You thought that one of the big wins today was that they finally were able, at least through his testimony, to connect Cohen to Trump, not just an intimation of something that was said, but actual instruction. Did it go far enough? ADAM POLLOCK, FORMER NEW YORK ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL: This was an important day for the prosecution. I think they connected a key point, which is they have Donald Trump directly, not one layer removed, that Donald Trump directly give with the motive why he wanted to cover up, why he wanted Stormy Daniels to be paid. This is three quarters of the prosecution's case. But did it go far enough? They still need to land who directed that the documents be falsified. This is a documents case. They need to prove not only that documents were falsified, which we now know from the prior weeks of testimony, but that Donald Trump directed the false documents. And that's the piece we still don't have. PHILLIP: S.E., I got to ask you a non legal question here because I know that you and I are probably going to -- S.E. CUPP, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: Please, I can't answer the legal ones. PHILLIP: I know. But listening to this testimony, I was in the room as Michael Cohen is explaining Donald Trump's behavior, his pattern of operation in the Trump Organization. And, honestly, I've covered the man for a long time, but I still wonder, what was he thinking? At the end of the day, why go through all this trouble to create this elaborate scheme? And I think that that is kind of hanging over this case that Trump chose the hard way here and created this problem for himself. And there's a lot of evidence that he really didn't have to do it this way. CUPP: Yes. And that evidence bore out, right, when the Access Hollywood tape came out and we all -- I mean, I'll speak for myself, thought it was going to be the end. It was not the end. I think there are people that can compartmentalize this. And, you know, we heard the locker room defense of that. So, I think, look, Donald Trump's boorishness, brashness, you could go further, was well known at the time. And I don't know if anyone else at this table has met Michael Cohen, but I've met Michael Cohen. I've been threatened personally by Michael Cohen. He is, in addition to all the other problems he has, deeply unlikable, deeply unlikable. But I think if you don't know them, you think, well, here's one slimy, dirty guy who worked for another slimy, dirty guy, and they kind of deserved each other and worked together in tandem. And I think it's believable that this dirty guy was doing dirty stuff for this dirty guy. That's what came out today. PHILLIP: Michael Cohen on the witness stand was not that guy who you and I know, if you've ever talked to him on the phone. COATES: He didn't want to be perceived as that guy. PHILLIP: He didn't want to be perceived as that guy. COATES: He's that guy though. COLWIN: He was cleaned up. PHILLIP: But, I mean, I'm saying from the perspective of actually watching him and listening him on the witness stand, he really was softening himself up for the jury, making it seem -- giving them the sob story version of it. And it was, to some extent effective, and that had to have been part of the process. COATES: I mean, essentially, as you guys know, in my mind, this was the equivalent of when you have the mugshot of the person of the day they were arrested. And then by the time you get to the trial, they've got glasses on, right? I mean, they got us suit. They got a puppy and a butterfly in their picture all of a sudden. JACKSON: I guess I'm in the minority with this, but I like the guy. I mean, I know people are throwing things at their T.V., met him, spoke with him, had a dialogue with him. [22:15:02] COLWIN: I think he likes him because he played Mr. Cohen. JACKSON: He was a good dude. Like, we just, you know, for whatever reason, I don't know, you know, he just seemed to me as a personable guy. He wasn't an idiot. It was a nice event. It was back and forth. COATES: Joey, you might be method acting right now. JACKSON: I really did, you know? So, there was that. PHILLIP: It's not so much about -- look, I don't want to cast aspersions on Michael Cohen. He's a human being and he comes on the show all the time. It's really more about the person he was at that time, which he even sort of describes himself. At one point he said, oh, I was angry even for me, because he was a quick to anger kind of person. And the prosecution knew he could not be that person on the witness stand or he would lose the jury. COLWIN: No. And he also had to admit that he lied and was a bully. He was a bully when he worked for the Trump Organization. He had to get that out in his direct because they knew the defense was certainly going to bring up his temper and his bullying and his lying and everything else, take the wind out of the sails. But to your point, really cleaning him up makes a huge difference to -- CUPP: But let's not -- I mean -- okay. Before we, you know, go on the Michael Cohen redemption tour, listen, he's still that guy and we haven't seen him being crossed by the defense. We haven't seen him defensive and put up against the wall and said, well, why'd you do that? Well, what about this? You said this earlier. Let's talk in a couple days or tomorrow, whenever the defense comes in to question him. And we'll see if he's still that guy or if Joey, you want to go out and have -- JACKSON: So, you know what it is, S.E. I think that what the prosecution has done in this case has spent a lot of time not making it about Michael Cohen as much as it's about him. How and why? We know because of how they laid out the case. He doesn't have to explain catch and kill. We had a guy by the name of Pecker explain that. He doesn't have to explain Access Hollywood and the imperative to save the campaign. And what can we do from the free for all, right? We have to get this under control, Stormy Daniels, get that story, take care of it now, so many details. We know that he's in the Oval Office, not from him, but from him as well, because we've heard information with respect to him being there when Trump became president. We know about the numerous phone calls that were made between parties, whether it be Hope Hicks, right, the press secretary to the campaign, and then later the White House. We know about the issues involving conversations with Pecker, with Howard. Why? Not because of him. We have phone records that establish these things. So, what am I saying? I'm saying that the prosecution has spent an inordinate amount of time in the lead up to his testimony, getting as much corroboration as possible so the jury has to believe very little from him. Last point, and that is that we are in these trials able to make reasonable inferences and draw them from the evidence. What do you think the closing argument will be? The prosecution's closing argument will be not only did Michael Cohen tell you, and if you pause as to believing him, every reasonable inference from the facts would suggest that Donald Trump knew exactly what was going on, orchestrated it, and at the end of the day, it's a conspiracy, it's a cover up, guilty. That will be the argument. COATES: I mean, Abby, I don't have to like him, I have to believe him. PHILLIP: That's right, yes. And, look, he's not going to be -- Donald Trump is probably not going to be taking the stand. So, Michael Cohen's word is going to be the one that's going to be left with the jury. Everyone stand by for us. Coming up next, more role playing from our friends here. COATES: Oh, it's S. E. Melania? That would be great. PHILLIP: Melania Trump makes a guest appearance. How Melania really blew up this trial in a way. Her word for word unfolding as told by Michael Cohen, alleging that it was her idea to spin the Access Hollywood tape as locker room talk. COATES: Plus, Anthony Scaramucci joins in on the Trump entourage that tried something new inside and outside the court today. Stay with us. (COMMERCIAL BREAK) [22:23:20] COATES: Well, welcome back to our special coverage of a dramatic day in the Trump trial. I want to go back to our role playing so you get an idea of what happened in court, and, I mean, word for word. You got Joey Jackson reading Michael Cohen, you have Mercedes Colwin as the prosecutor and this exchange is Cohen admitting his past lying. COLWIN: Did you have a way of referring to Mr. Trump when you worked for him? JACKSON: Yes. COLWIN: What was that? JACKSON: I would call him boss, Mr. Trump. COLWIN: And in working for him for ten years, all the variety of the types of works that you did for him, what was it like for you? How did you feel about working at the Trump Organization during those years? JACKSON: It was fantastic. It was -- working for him, especially during those ten years, was an amazing experience in many, many ways. There were great times. There were several less than great times. But for the most part, I enjoyed the responsibilities that were given to me. I enjoyed working with my colleagues at the Trump Organization, the Trump children. It was a big family. COLWIN: During the years that you worked for him at the Trump Organization now, did you at times lie for him? JACKSON: I did. COLWIN: Why did you do that? JACKSON: Because it's what was needed in order to accomplish a task. COLWIN: Was there also a sense -- did you feel a sense of obligation towards him as well? JACKSON: Yes. COLWIN: Did you at times during your work for the Trump Organization, at the Trump Organization for Mr. Trump, bully people for him? JACKSON: Yes, ma'am. COLWIN: Why did you do that? JACKSON: Again, in order to accomplish the task. The only thing that was on my mind was to accomplish the task to make him happy. PHILLIP: All right, so that was Michael Cohen admitting that he lied before the defense actually has a chance to call him out for it. [22:25:05] So, guys, let's go to the part where Cohen talks about the atmosphere around the campaign when it came to the Access Hollywood tape. COLWIN: And what if any discussion did you remember with Mr. Trump about the Access Hollywood tape and the strategy for dealing with it? JACKSON: He wanted me to reach out to all of my contacts with the media. We needed to put a spin on this. And the spin that he wanted to put on it was that this is locker room talk, something that Melania had recommended, or at least he told me that that's what Melania had thought it was, and use that in order to get control over the story and to minimize its impact on him and his campaign. COLWIN: And what, if anything, did you do at that point to try to assist the campaign with that effort? JACKSON: I reached out to members of the media. COLWIN: In addition, when you say you reached out to the members of the media, did you have conversations with them? JACKSON: I did. COLWIN: Along the lines of the conversations, how to minimize the impact? UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Objection, Your Honor. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Sustained. COLWIN: You mentioned that you reached out to the press. Did members of the press also reach out to you? JACKSON: Yes. COLWIN: And did you have conversations with the press about this matter? JACKSON: I did. COLWIN: What was your understanding about why the press reached out to you about this? JACKSON: Well, sum and substance of the recording is quite damaging and they wanted comment. COLWIN: And were you somebody that they fairly frequently came to and asked for comment on matters related to Mr. Trump? JACKSON: Yes. PHILLIP: All right. Mercedes and Joey, come on over. We got a lot to discuss. We were just talking about the good parts for the prosecution, what was left to be sort of desired in what they got from Michael Cohen. He was in those excerpts at times, somewhat sympathetic. He explained kind of his role and all of that. But there were some material things that they had to get out of him. Were there any holes for you? SCHNEIDER: Well, look, I think they should -- the prosecution should bang into Michael Cohen, do as much damage as they can on the prosecution side, take all the air out of the balloon for the defense before they even put him up there so that it's done within the prosecution's control. Because we know -- we absolutely know that Donald Trump's lawyers are going to come in and destroy Michael Cohen, make mincemeat out of him and his family. You know, there have been complaints in the past before this case, when this all came to light, that Donald Trump even went after Michael Cohen's wife. And, you know, this is going to be a free for all. So, the prosecution would do a much better job if they made Trump -- I'm sorry, if they made Michael Cohen look as bad as possible on the direct examination, because they can control it and then the wind is out of the sail. COATES: I mean, Adam, thinking about that, there's something to expressing some level of incredulity, is the word, right? To suggest that when he makes a comment, for example, and suggests, you know what, the reason I recorded the conversation between Trump and myself, which is a point that we all know about, was because I was really trying to make sure that David Pecker could believe him. Now, you can believe that or not believe that, but you can imagine someone in the courtroom is going, what? Would it go a long way for the prosecution to have that moment of, really, Michael? POLLOCK: A little bit. There are definitely parts today, including that part that didn't make a lot of sense. There was that. There was also the part where he said he didn't really want a job in the administration, even though everybody knew at that time, and that will definitely come back on cross-examination that he was really upset. He was devastated that he didn't get a job in the White House. And so I think -- COATES: What impact is that though for the defense? How would they use that? POLLOCK: The defense is going to cross examine him. The defense is going to pick up parts of his stories that are inconsistent on a backdrop of he's a known liar. He admitted to being a liar, both in court and also in the past. He went to jail. They're going to pick up, they're going to cross-examine him, and they're going to come back on closing and say, he is unreliable. You cannot believe Michael Cohen. SCHNEIDER: You know what else though? Yes, they're also going to use that one nugget. It's a gold nugget for the defense to say that Michael Cohen wants it onto this campaign. Because remember, Michael Cohen funded this deal on his own. And now Trump can distance himself from it and say, oh, if I'm such a micromanager and control freak like everybody makes me out, then why didn't I fund this deal? Michael Cohen funded it because he -- this is a theory, he wanted into my campaign and he wanted to please me and he funded this without my consent. And everything he's told the court the courtroom on direct examination about Mr. Trump told me to do this, I did this, that's the direction of Mr. Trump, the Trump defense team can come in and say, no, Michael Cohen did this on his own because he wanted the credit. Like Hope Hicks said, Michael Cohen always wanted the credit. COATES: Well, he said the same thing today, right? He testified about wanting to (INAUDIBLE). But you followed him. You've covered both Trump and Cohen. [22:30:10] SE CUPP, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: Yep. COATES: Was Cohen, according to your reporting and your experience, a puppy or a puppet? CUPP: Today? COATES: No, at the time. CUPP: Oh, at the administration? COATES: I want to focus on that moment because I think that the prosecution's got to focus not on who he is today, but who he was at the time this actually went down. CUPP: I mean, in addition to knowing Michael Cohen, I've known a lot of people that have worked for Donald Trump before he was president. I mean, everyone in there is a puppet. Everyone in there is being used. And their families are not safe. I mean, no one is safe in Trump's orbit. And in fact, when you go to work for him, we know this now, it can end up one of a couple ways. You're probably going to be unhirable after that. You might go to jail after that. I mean, it's not a safe space. Michael Cohen knew that. Michael Cohen acted the part at the time. He is now trying to say, well, I've changed. I've evolved. I'm hearing people say that about him now. But Michael Cohen knew what he was doing. And to your point, if I were the prosecution, I would have said, so you lied. How many times do you think you lied in your career for Donald Trump? How frequent was it? Why did you have to do it? Why did you feel like it was so important to lie for Trump? Why would we believe you now? Get that all done so that when the defense does it, it's, well, we heard this already. JACKSON: Yeah, I agree with that, S.E., very much. And I think that's what we could be coming to. COATES: And how do you rehabilitate him after that? JACKSON: So I think what it is, it's going to be when you're going to hear the defense, it's about rap. What is that about, right? It's about revenge. It's about animus. And it's about payback. That's what the argument is going to be. You're going to hear the defense get up there and say, listen, ladies and gentlemen, they need Michael Cohen because this is a case about records. And the only one who gets those records and to establish that it was Donald Trump who had them falsified and was close to that is this man, Michael Cohen. You can't believe him about anything. You know why? Because he's motivated for revenge. He wanted a job in the White House. He didn't get it. And he's lied to everybody. He locks about his wife. Davidson trying to string along this deal. He was lying to it all. And what did we see? We saw a TikTok video with him in a jail shirt. This guy is here because he wants him in jail. And the only way he gets there is if you believe him. Don't believe the hype. And I think that's what the defense's play on in all of this information about him being a bad guy. Last, last point. To S.E.'s point is I think it's coming where they're going to. That is the prosecution let it all out at the end of the testimony to suggest he lied. He's convicted. He's a bad dude, but he's not lying now. SCHNEIDER: But Joey, he can be rehabilitated in a very easy way. He pled guilty in federal court to two counts involving this election. One was for an excessive campaign contribution, felony count, and also an illegal campaign contribution. And when is the one time a liar tells the truth when they're entering a guilty plea in federal court? So you can go through all of Michael Cohen's lies, but when's the one time he was actually telling the story of what happened during that plea that he admitted to and spent and got a three-year jail sentence? JACKSON: Liar once, liar forever. COLWIN: Yeah. That's what they're going to hear. COATES: Don't give us Latin. That's a charge they're going to have. If you lie one time, you can discredit the whole testimony. COLWIN: Exactly right. And that's going to be their center stone of the defense. They're going to say if you're, they're going to be instructed. That jury is going to hear if they, if someone lies once, you can discredit everything that they've testified to on the stand. It is a very powerful tool for the defense and defense lawyers always wrap their arms around that because it is so powerful to that jury. PHILLIP: One of the things Michael Cone always says, though, to your point, Stacy, is that all of his convictions were done for one person. COLWIN: Yes. PHILLIP: And that is Donald Trump. COLWIN: Yeah. PHILLIP: And there is a question that could be placed to the jury. I mean, does it make sense to you that the person who directed him to commit these crimes that he did time for gets to just sit there? COLWIN: It's really, I mean, it is going to be very difficult. The jury looking at this has a lot to really work through. And I think exactly what you said, Joey, the social media posts that he had where he's talking about how much he hates Trump and then the shirt that shows Trump behind bars. That's all damning. It has to be rehabilitated. It's going to be very hard. It's going to come through redirect. We'll have to see. But that jury is going to sit there. By the way, there's two lawyers in that jury. They must be like, what kind of lawyer is this? PHILLIP: The lawyers are very important. COLWIN: Let's get real here. I think he's coming back. PHILLIP: We'll get to that, too, everyone. Thank you very much. Next, we're going to have more on the Trump hush money trial. We're going to speak with Anthony Scaramucci, former Trump insider. He will add to all the insights on today's testimony and the circus around the courthouse today. Stay with us. (COMMERCIAL BREAK) [22:39:19] PHILLIP: Who knew 100 Center Street might be the new Mar-a-Lago, except maybe a little dingier. COATES: I mean, the courthouse is the courthouse. But tonight, there's more proof that Republicans are making a cold calculation about how to stay maybe in the good, warm graces of the presumptive Republican nominee, a.k.a. Donald Trump, a.k.a. the former president, defending himself from 34 felony charges in the state of New York. Now, this is why simply showing up at court to the gag order bars Trump from saying anything else himself. Well, this is the way maybe they want to do it. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) SEN. J.D. VANCE (R-OH): What's going on inside that courtroom is a threat to American democracy, ladies and gentlemen. We cannot have a country where you get to prosecute your political opponents instead of persuading voters. [22:40:04] Joe Biden's entire strategy is to try to distract from inflation at home and war overseas with this sham trial. (END VIDEO CLIP) PHILLIP: Joining us now, former White House communications director for Donald Trump, Anthony Scaramucci. So what's the motive here for the JD Vance's and the Tommy Tuberville's of the world and the Nicole Malia Takis'? Apparently, Vivek Ramaswamy will be there tomorrow. What's the calculus here to make this pilgrimage to the courthouse? ANTHONY SCARAMUCCI, FORMER WHITE HOUSE COMMUNICATIONS DIRECTOR: Well, I mean, they are making the mistake that many of us made. They're signaling to Donald Trump. It's sort of even a mimetic thing. You saw him with his hands like this. You know, he's trying to even act and speak like Trump. And so, you know, I mean, I would tell him to shave the beard, though. Trump doesn't like beard. So, J.D., if you're watching, if you really want to be as obsequious as you look, you know, you got to shave that beard because he doesn't like those beards. But, you know, I see what's going on and he is destroying the Republican Party. So there's very few people with any backbone left in that party. And those people standing out there, they're just spineless sycophants. They're going to say and do whatever Donald Trump wants. And they think that, you know, they're looking at these poll numbers and they're looking at Twitter, which is a closed sphere of influence, and they think President Trump has already won the election, guys. So that's why they're there. COATES: Well, to be clear, too, what they were actually saying, this is not Joe Biden. Just to remind the American public every single time, there is the Department of Justice that's part of the executive branch, the federal government. This is a local prosecutor who has been elected. His name is Alvin Bragg. He was in the quorum. I'm going too deep, I guess, to put out the very obvious here of one sovereign is not impacting the other, but that's the talking point that you can't talk about. Of course, you're talking about the gag order. SCARAMUCCI: But that's Trump. COATES: Go ahead. SCARAMUCCI: That's Trump's talk. I'm sorry not to interrupt you, but that's Trump's talking point. See, so they're mimetically repeating Trump's talking point back to him because he's sitting there in his underwear tonight flipping through the channels. Of course, as he sees my face, he always gets upset. But if he's flipping through the channels, he's going to be like, yes, you're saying exactly what I say. And so for tomorrow, I'm going to praise you and maybe give you a dog biscuit. You see what I'm saying? I just want to explain to you what they're doing because, unfortunately, guys, I've been there. OK, Michael Cohen has been there. So I can explain to you exactly what they're doing. And I can also tell you what's going to happen to all of them. They're going to end up miserable and say, well, why did I do that? I watched other people do that. It didn't work for them. Why did I think it was going to work for me? COATES: Actually, Melania Trump came up a great deal today during the tour. You've actually observed the former president and the former first lady together. There was a point during testimony today where Michael Cohen recalled how Trump basically said like he could find somebody else to be married to if his marriage crumbled after the release of the "Access Hollywood" tape. And then the disclosure of these apparent trysts, of course, with Karen McDougal and Stormy, which he has obviously denied full- throatedly. Does this strike? Is this as credible to you to hear Donald Trump making this statement, according to Michael Cohen, that he essentially didn't care? SCARAMUCCI: Well, it's credible that he would say things like that, whether or not that's how he felt. He probably does care, because one of the things that really bothers him is her absence. So she didn't show up on Mother's Day at Mar-a-Lago. You can see that there's a genuine strain in what's going on. And you can also see that he's, look who he's on trial for. And so, of course, she would be absent from a situation like that. I happen to like her a great deal. I think she's a very down-to-earth person. I got along with her. I don't really like talking about her. But if you're asking me, would Trump say something like that? Yes, he would, because he's an objectifier of people. So people ask me, is Trump a racist? He's not a racist. He sees you as an object in a field of vision. So if like a KKK member, guys, they don't go over to a black car and kick the car. Trump's not a racist in that way. He'll run you over and he'll say racist things if he thinks it's going to serve his political interests. And then the flip side is he'll pardon an African-American grandmother or he'll spend time with Kanye if he thinks it serves his political interests. And so Melania is just another object in his field of vision, unfortunately. So I can see him saying that. He doesn't treat people with any level of empathy or attachment or connection. [22:45:05] COATES: You said touching the racism comment, (inaudible). SCARAMUCCI: That's what the J.D. Vance's are going to find out. I'm sorry? PHILLIP: You laid out a couple of scenarios there. Both of them sounded not so great in terms of what kind of character you think Donald Trump is. But I do want to ask you about the character that Michael Cohen painted in that courtroom. I was struck by this. I mean, after Michael Cohen lays out $130,000 for Trump, basically, to silence Stormy Daniels, he does it out of his own pocket. He takes out a home equity line of credit. And then it's time to pay Michael Cohen back. And Michael Cohen gets his bonus slashed into a third of what it was supposed to have been. He is painting the picture of a Donald Trump who basically never wanted to pay, didn't want to pay Michael Cohen for the legal work, didn't want to pay Michael Cohen, really, for the hush money. Donald Trump is sitting there listening to all of the dirty laundry being put out there in the court of law. What do you think is going through his mind? SCARAMUCCI: I think he likes that sort of stuff, you know. I mean, I was definitely privy when he told people, yeah, that's the bill, but you call them and tell them we're not paying it. And I was there when he said things like, well, they'll have to hire a lawyer and it'll cost more money for the law and the legal fees and the court and all that other stuff. So, yeah, I mean, that is, it's been his M.O. You guys could bring on a legion of contractors and interior designers and you pick the trade and they'll all look at you the same way and say, yeah, no, we didn't get paid or we got paid a portion. Or if his lawyers were going to talk to you that have already jettisoned themselves from practicing for Donald Trump, a lot of them didn't get paid. And so, you know, that's what he does. That's his M.O. He thinks that that's smart. I know you guys think this is nuts, but when he hears testimony like that, he thinks it's smart. You remember what he said in that first debate in 2016, that I don't pay taxes, that makes me smart? Well, I don't pay my bills. In his mind, he thinks it makes him smart. And there's, I guess the big question is, why is there still 20, 30, 40 percent of the people or some large portion of the Republican Party still tied up with this guy after everything that they see, all the facts that have unfolded here? COATES: That's the question for the members of the Congress who are showing up. And of course, they believe full heartedly that they should support him. And then tomorrow, as Abby talked about, there's additional people who are hoping to win the veep stakes who will likely show up. Maybe that's the new barometer for one's loyalty. Anthony Scaramucci, thank you so much. Hey, up next, a fact check of Donald Trump's Jersey Shore rally. See what we found. (COMMERCIAL BREAK) [22:52:20] PHILLIP: Now, before Donald Trump sat in the courthouse today to face his nemesis, he spent the weekend at the Jersey Shore holding a rally and telling, well, a lot of lies. CNN's Daniel Dale is with us to fact check. Daniel, you've been busy. DANIEL DALE, CNN REPORTER: I've been busy. I counted at least 26 false claims in this one rally speech. I'm going to take a deep breath. Let's try to go through them all. So Trump said Democrats rigged the 2020 election. We know that's a flat out lie. Trump said Joe Biden cheats on election. Another lie. Trump said he's leading in, quote, "every single poll". He leads in many polls, betrayals and a whole bunch of others. Trump said he won South Carolina by 40 or 50 points. That's not true in any primary or general election. Trump said Biden-era jobs numbers are rigged. They simply are not. He claimed that inflation under Biden has been 50 percent. In fact, total inflation has been roughly 20 percent. Trump said the price of bacon under Biden is up 79 percent. It's actually about 13 percent. Trump said New Jersey has the highest electricity cost in the country. Not even close to true. He said California gas prices had just hit $7.21 a gallon. GasBuddy tells me that just one out of 10,526 California stations was even above $7 the day he spoke. The state average was $5.26. Trump said we have 42,000 soldiers in South Korea. It's about 28,000. He said that before he changed things himself, South Korea paid the U.S. I'm going to cough. I'm sorry. He said South Korea paid the U.S. like nothing for that military presence. It was actually paying the U.S. more than $800 million per year, roughly half the cost. He said he built 571 miles of border wall. Federal data shows it was 458 miles. He said his ongoing criminal trial was, quote, "all done by Biden". Again, there's no evidence that Biden has had any involvement in this trial. He said Biden indicted him. Nope. Four grand juries of ordinary citizens indicted him. He said he's been indicted more than gangster Al Capone. No, Capone had at least six indictments to Trump's four. Trump said Manhattan D.A. Alvin Bragg has allowed crime to go completely unchecked. That's wrong. Manhattan crime was down last year, has continued going down so far this year. Trump said Biden's Oval Office is surrounded by fascists. Just made up. It's fiction. He spoke of NATO countries having failed to pay, quote, "bills before he came along". That's not true. NATO's guideline for countries' own defense spending does not create any bills. He said millions of migrants from prisons and mental institutions are entering the country. That's more fiction. He said foreign leaders in Africa and Asia are emptying their prisons to send prisoners here to the U.S. as migrants on purpose. Also fiction. He spoke of how Biden- era illegal immigration will supposedly destroy Medicare and Social Security. Even anti-immigration activists acknowledge illegal immigration actually boosts those programs since many undocumented people pay taxes even though they're ineligible to receive benefits. [22:55:08] He said every legal scholar wanted Roe v. Wade overturned and abortion policy returned to the states. Totally wrong. Multiple legal scholars have told me personally that they had themselves wanted Roe preserved. He said every Democrat, he said for the most part, wanted Roe overturned. A complete reversal of reality. Huge majorities of Democrats supported Roe. Trump said Democrats want to change federal law to allow the execution of babies after birth, another out-and-out fabrication. He said he will, quote, "stop Joe Biden's sinister plan to abolish the suburbs". No such plan, of course, exists. And Trump said the bleach-bit email deletion software used by Hillary Clinton's team years ago is, quote, "so expensive," it is actually free of charge. PHILLIP: That is oldie but goodie. Daniel, take a sip of water. DALE: I will. An entire glass of water. PHILLIP: You know what, you said a lot of very important things, but I can't get over the price of bacon one. It's just very weird. COATES: 79 percent will be high. Yeah. I'm just saying. PHILLIP: All right, guys. Well, our special coverage of Trump's hush money trial continues after this. Don't go anywhere. Stay with us. (COMMERCIAL BREAK) Laura Coates Live Aired May 13, 2024 - 23:00 ET THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED. (COMMERCIAL BREAK) [23:00:59] (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) DONALD TRUMP, FORMER PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: We paid a lawyer a legal expense. A legal expense is a legal expense. It's marked down in the book -- quote -- "legal expense." It's perfectly marked down. (END VIDEO CLIP) LAURA COATES, CNN HOST: Except Michael Cohen said it's not actually so perfect. The prosecution's star witness in Trump's hush money trial, he finally took the stand today. Welcome to a special edition of "Laura Coates Live" alongside Abby Phillip right here in New York. And you know for years, Michael Cohen, he was Donald Trump's attack dog. But today, the person who made it a point to keep Trump's enemies in line, turning against his former boss in court and, of course, under oath. Trump himself, realizing the importance of the moment, showing up with a huge entourage of political allies, including possible V.P. pick, J.D. Vance. Former president remaining quite restrained though, of course, of Cohen's testimony. But on the other end of the courtroom, the jury was listening, they were taking notes, and the prosecution is hoping that each one of those jurors are looking past Cohen's, let's call it obvious baggage, and trying to connect the dots to see if the prosecution has built the case in the last 16 days. That is, of course, trying Donald Trump directly to the alleged criminal scheme for those 34 false business records. ABBY PHILLIP, CNN HOST: So ultimately, how did they use Michael Cohen to do that? Well, they had him speak to Trump's political motivations to silence Stormy Daniels, his approval of the scheme, and this is key, his final sign off of Cohen's reimbursement. So, Cohen testified that once Trump learned Stormy Daniels was chopping her story, he didn't care how it would impact his wife. His only concern was the campaign. Cohen said that Trump told him -- quote -- "Women will hate me. Guys, they think it's cool, but this is going to be a disaster for the campaign." Cohen also claims Trump told him to do what he often did for Trump, just fix it. He testified that Trump -- quote -- "stated to me that he had spoken to some friends, some individuals, very smart people, and that it's $130,000. You're like a billionaire. Just pay it. There's no reason to keep this thing out there. So, do it. And he expressed to me, just do it." COATES: Michael Cohen eventually had to front the money himself because I guess he wasn't like a billionaire. And then near the end of today's testimony, he came full circle, bringing the entire Stormy Daniels hush money scheme right back to Donald Trump. Cohen is saying that he went to former Trump CFO, Allen Weisselberg, in early 2017, where they agreed on the reimbursement plan. He and Allen Weisselberg gave that plan to Trump. And then Cohen says that Trump personally approved it. Now, the prosecution asked Cohen directly whether he was being paid for future legal services, to which Cohen responded, that was what it designed to be. Then the prosecutor asked, what was it actually? With Cohen responding, reimbursement of my money. I want to bring in CNN legal analysts Jennifer Rodgers and Michael Moore, civil and criminal defense attorney Donte Mills, courts reporter for the "New York Daily News," Molly Crane-Newman, and retired judge George Grasso. A really important day to be with you, Judge Grasso, because you were in the courtroom today. Abby and I were as well. And you were there this morning. You were actually there the whole day. And, of course, Michael Cohen, he's known for his, let's call it a charismatic temperament, right? GEORGE GRASSO, RETIRED QUEENS COUNTY SUPREME COURT JUDGE: Right. COATES: Sometimes bombastic, sometimes berating. He was not presenting as that today at all. He was measured. He was calm and restrained. What did you see? He was smooth. He told a complete story. He didn't hesitate. There weren't uncomfortable pauses. And I thought it was -- his arc was quite interesting, having -- I've been there every day. So, having heard all of the testimony firsthand. How they -- he starts with that infamous first meeting in Trump Tower with him, and Pecker and Trump, where the catch and kill scheme was plotted. And then the positive stories and the negative stories. [23:05:00] And he went from that arc all the way other key aspects of the case, from the doorman payment of $30,000 to the Karen McDougal payment of $150,000 to the Stormy Daniels payment of $130,000. And where do they basically end up the plane today? Back in Trump's office, in Trump Tower with Michael Cohen, Donald Trump, and now substituted for Pecker, Weisselberg, with the dynamite, the dynamite piece of evidence, the Weisselberg notes laying out the scheme that involved the false records to pay Michael Cohen $420,000, not do it as a reimbursement, but do it for bogus legal services. And Michael Cohen walked that document right into Trump. It was fascinating, compelling testimony. There still has to be cross- examination, obviously, and this is going to be a witness subject to very serious cross-examination. But I think the prosecution team is feeling pretty good tonight. And I don't think defendant Trump is feeling that great right now. COATES: I mean, you talked about the arc, too. And Molly, I want to get you in here because the arc that you also saw was, he talked about being honored to have been asked to work for him in the first instance, calling the Trump Organization like a family. He was almost sycophantic and wistful in the way that he described when they actually asked him, you know, how did you feel when Donald Trump would give you praise? And his voice was drilled up, I thought I was on top of the world. I mean, this is -- that's how he was beginning his story. And there he is now, face-to-face with Trump. MOLLY CRANE-NEWMAN, MANHATTAN COURTS REPORTER, NEW YORK DAILY NEWS: Yeah, I think that's kind of some of the strongest emotion we saw from him when he was talking about how much of an honor it was to work for Trump and kind of describing, you know, he's always called the fixer, and we hear he was his kind of loyal lackey in many ways. And, you know, he kind of said, when I was hired, my job was to -- my only job was to work for Donald Trump. I didn't take tasks from anybody else. And once he won the White House, I had no job. You know, he kind of described being sort of despondent once Trump won because he didn't really know what to do with himself. And he was expecting to go to Washington with Trump. And that didn't immediately look clear. But it was quite remarkable hearing him kind of describe the better years. And, you know, when -- you know, he was sort of -- the day that this opportunity came up to work for Trump was the last day he worked for his firm, and that he moved into Ivanka's old office, and he was right by Trump at Trump Tower. Yes, that was pretty remarkable. PHILLIP: I mean, I -- not to be Debbie Downer but -- COATES: But be Debbie Downer. (LAUGHTER) PHILLIP: -- be Debbie Downer because at the end of the day -- at the end of the day, this was -- you know, they're going to present this sort of like rose-colored case with Michael Cohen just giving all the perfect answers. But there were some things that are not going to be left unanswered, even just the kind of hearsay element of it. It's really just Michael Cohen's word that is -- that is anchoring. Actually, the biggest part of this case at this point. JENNIFER RODGERS, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: Yeah. I mean, they're going to have to get into some of the bad stuff before they turn him over. They certainly don't want the defense lawyers to have the first crack at tearing down Michael Cohen. He's going to have to do some of that himself first. And they will do that tomorrow, without question. One of the things is, you know, you talk about how he was so wistful and so positive about his time with Trump. Since then, on his podcast and in a million TV appearances and so on, he hasn't really been that way. So, he's going to have to explain how the breach happened, how he felt, how he kind of transformed. And maybe the answer is that's a persona that he's putting on, you know, for the purposes of the podcast or whatever. But he's going to have to own up to those feelings because they're ready. The defense is ready to pound him over the head with that, you know, a million times. COATES: But can't both be true. I mean, just thinking about -- you know, if you're the prosecution, you really want to like freeze him in time and say, yeah, okay, he hates him now, but I'm focusing on when this all went down, right? This is the moment in time to focus on. When he -- this is the job that was done. Every -- all the bias that's developing now is after the fact. How do you play both? DONTE MILLS, NATIONAL TRIAL ATTORNEY, MILLS AND EDWARDS, LLP: Well, you have to, because everybody starts -- in order to have a special relationship with Trump, it had to be good at some point. So, you can't disregard that. You can't ignore the fact that he was dedicated to Trump exclusively for a very, very long time. And, in fact, I mean, he's named Trump's attack dog, all of that kind of stuff. He was a bad person, but for Trump. So even when you talk about what the cross-examination there -- of course, they're going to call him a liar, they're going to talk about his flaws, but he used those flaws to benefit the defendant that's sitting right there. So ultimately what he's going to say is, well, we did this together, we were in this together. And I saw the light. I accept the responsibility. Now, it's his turn. PHILLIP: You mentioned the -- MICHAEL MOORE, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: (INAUDIBLE) PHILLIP: Yeah. Okay. So, talk about the tape because this is really important. MOORE: You can't be in love with him and tape him at the same time. That's really what happened to me. COATES: He gives a benign reason for taping. MOORE: There's no benign reason to say I'm taping my buddy -- I'm taping my buddy and -- who happens to be my client and who I love and worship. [23:10:02] But I didn't tell him I taped him. And that's what's going to catch him tomorrow. He told -- you know, they're going to get him on cross- examination about all the different times that he has lied. And one of the biggest times that we saw today was that he lied in court because he said, I always told Trump what was going on. He knew everything. I was totally honest with him. I told him what happened. That's what he didn't tell him. That he was taping him. That this was a secret recording. So, he has now lied in court in this case. COATES: Well, hold on. What he said was, if I'm remembering correctly, it was -- she asked the question, to the best of your knowledge, are you aware of whether Trump was aware that you were recording? And he said, no. So, he didn't -- like you say, I'm not -- I'm not saying it wasn't surreptitious. MOORE: Because he didn't -- because he didn't tell him. I mean, he's got his little recorder going in private while he's having this meeting. So, you've got him now hiding something from the man he says is responsible for everything. Well, that just doesn't make sense. I mean, that doesn't fit together. Not to mention the fact that it's completely distasteful and all kind of creepy that you're taping your client. PHILLIP: Can I just ask --I mean, the tape is all kinds of fascinating. But there is a part of the tape that makes you wonder, did Michael Cohen believe that at the time, even that Karen McDougal transaction was maybe a little bit illegal, and wanted to memorialize on the record that Donald Trump was involved and knew about it? COATES: But what he said, though -- MILLS: -- to hold it with Trump because it will be damaging -- PHILLIP: Yeah, to hold it over Trump. COATES: Remember, what he said was -- the explanation Michael Cohen gave was, I recorded the conversation because I wanted to make sure that David Pecker, who was increasingly antsy about being repaid, knew that Trump intended to do so because he had this drawer full of boxes, full of ammunition essentially against him. And that was what he gave as a basis. PHILLIP: That's the explanation he gave. COATES: That he said. PHILLIP: The question is, is that -- MILLS: He was using a tape to make sure that Pecker knew that Trump was on board with everything that was going on. COATES: But they never played it, though. MILLS: But that tape itself is the reason why I believe this case moved forward. Because without that tape, you're simply relying on Michael Cohen's word. But that tape puts Trump directly into the conversation, saying, cash, are we paying cash? And I think that's the sum and substance of why Michael Cohen has credibility, because Trump is on tape. MOORE: But it turned out -- GRASSO: I think -- I think that the way Cohen put it fit very well with David Pecker's testimony. But I have one question that I can't help but asking. Is Debbie Downer related to Douglas Dennison? (LAUGHTER) MOORE: I mean, I think another way to hear the tape is that it sounds like a businessman, and he's got his CFO and his lawyer handling things. And Allen Weisselberg is handling things. And Michael tells him, don't worry, Allen is on top of this. I mean, that's on the tape. And that's what -- that's what a CEO does, is he lets somebody else do the work and he sign the papers or whatever else. And so -- and then we're not going to have Weisselberg come to court. And so, you've essentially got this absent witness. You've got Michael Cohen saying this. And Michael Cohen made one recording that they've given, and it cut off in the middle. And we don't have a recording of Trump saying, yeah, go ahead and let's make some false records. I mean, it's just too much stuff. (CROSSTALK) I think they have a phone record that corroborates the incoming call. PHILLIP: And that's going to be -- GRASSO: But they don't have another tape. But they don't have another recording. MOORE: Yeah, but they have a record that corroborates that. But it's a phone call cut off. GRASSO: But there's no -- there's no other recording? This is just this one tape, one recording? PHILLIP: He said -- he said he has never recorded Trump except that one time. And the reason he did it was because he was worried about keeping David Pecker happy. So -- MOORE: He took an oath to tell the truth, too, and he went to jail. COATES: Wouldn't it be so fascinating if there was a president in history who had tapes and I could talk to his former lawyer? Oh, John Dean is coming on next. Hold on a second, everyone. Stand by because not every day you see someone in the legal orbit of a president end up testifying against them. But, of course, it has happened before. I'm talking with the former Nixon White House counsel, John Dean. There he is. He joins me next. Actually, next. Oh, now? Why are you playing music in my ear then? Okay, here, John, I'm here right now. Your testimony -- I want to talk to you right now. Your testimony against former President Nixon is, frankly, legendary. What did you think of Cohen's testimony today? JOHN DEAN, CNN CONTRIBUTOR: Well, from all the reports I've heard, it was very good. Obviously, the big test is going to come tomorrow, as the panel made clear, when he's subject to cross-examination. COATES: Well, when you look at this -- I mean, the idea of this tape -- obviously, the Nixon tapes are distinct from what's happening here in this courtroom. But you disclosed your suspicion about the existence of Nixon's Oval Office tapes. We were just talking about the jury hearing the tape of Trump and Cohen talking about this hush money payment to Karen McDougal. [23:15:01] I want to play for everyone, just to remind everyone, what this tape sounded like. Listen to this. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) MICHAEL COHEN, FORMER DONALD TRUMP'S ATTORNEY (voice-over): Correct. So, I'm all over that. And I spoke to Allen about it, when it comes time for the financing, which will be -- TRUMP (voice-over): Listen, what financing? COHEN (voice-over): We'll have to pay him something. TRUMP (voice-over): ina0 pay with cash. COHEN (voice-over): No, no, no, I got it. TRUMP (voice-over): Check. (END VIDEO CLIP) COATES: Now, Cohen offers a kind of innocent explanation, he says, for recording his own client, that he wanted to prove to David Pecker that Trump was going to pay him for that hush money payment. Did that and does that sound believable to you, that a jury would buy that? DEAN: It's possible. I have no reason to doubt Michael's assessment of why he was running his voice recorder when he went into the office. It sounds like -- it doesn't sound like he turned it on when he got in there. I understand that he cut it short because he had an incoming phone call, which on my iPhone often does cut anything else off. So that's understandable also. And he didn't take the call, apparently. So, I -- you know, we will hear his fuller explanation tomorrow when you can be sure he's going to be grilled on this issue at ad nauseum, if not even longer. COATES: Yeah. I mean, we're hearing that the cross will be likely as long as the direct, if not maybe longer. There's going to be a focus on trying to undermine his credibility by raking him over the coals, as you can possibly imagine here. And then you've got the idea of bias. We've talked a lot about the moment in time where he worked for Trump. But most people know Michael Cohen in the aftermath. There's going to be comments about his bias, his animus, about revenge, possibly. Cohen testified that he was resentful at not being brought to Washington after he had done so much for Trump. How do you think that aspect is going to play? DEAN: Well, I would think he probably was more resentful of having his bonus cut down as sharply as it was. And the fact that he was told his career was over with the Trump Organization. And then he explained that his ego was what made him want to at least be on a list to go to Washington. But I thought he came up with a fairly clever way that he could cash in, which was to be the private counsel of the president. Richard Nixon had a private counsel who got a lot of clients as a result of his association with Nixon. He'd later go to jail for his fundraising, but he did do well while Nixon was president as a result of that connection. And I think that Michael probably would have done well had things unraveled a little differently. COATES: John, talk to me about the enormous pressure, frankly, that Michael Cohen is under. I mean, he has been billed as the star witness for several months, for really a very long time now. You have testified under tremendous pressure. What is it like living with the anticipation and then the aftermath? DEAN: Well, mostly, I think, particularly attorneys, tend to just spend their time preparing and not thinking a lot about what's going to happen. In my own case, I had to work with the prosecutors who really had on and off knowledge of Watergate. They quizzed me at length before my testimony, and then they went broad and sort of used me as a data bank and a source. And then after my testimony -- immediately before they stopped talking to me, and then after my testimony, I was on the stand for two weeks during the big trial where I was working with the prosecutors. So, in the courtroom situation, after that testimony, they had me come to the back room, and I met with them every break they came in. They would have questions for me as sort of their database to get facts about witnesses they were about to cross-examine and what have you. So, it was a very unique vantage point. I got to see the trial, which was from the prosecutor's own room. COATES: But how did it feel in terms of your safety, your feelings of law enforcement? DEAN: I -- Laura, I didn't really feel any pressure. COATES: Okay. DEAN: I was very comfortable with what I was doing. I was before -- I testified before the Senate. Because I had worked on Capitol Hill, I was familiar with the forum. It was -- there's no rules of hearsay, of course, in hearings like that, so you can go wide and far when you answer questions. It's much more difficult to testify in a courtroom where there are rules of evidence. You have to be much tighter in your answers. And it seems -- I was struck from the reports today, I haven't seen the transcript yet, that Michael was very well prepared, and I think he'll probably be prepared and ready to take it on the chin tomorrow and take some punches in the gut and deal with them in a calm and collected manner. [23:20:01] COATES: Oh, I think taking on the chin and maybe a punch in the gut would be the best-case scenario. We were talking about the cross- examination of Michael Cohen. John Dean, thank you so much. DEAN: Thank you, Laura. PHILLIP: And ahead, Michael Cohen has been described in court like the dog who yells squirrel. But today, he was calm on the stand. How will jurors actually view this testimony and his credibility as well? We have a jury consultant who's joining us next. (COMMERCIAL BREAK) PHILLIP: For weeks now, the jury in Trump's hush money trial has been hearing all about Michael Cohen. They've heard he's a jerk, that he's hostile, he's very aggressive, hopeless, like the dog who yells squirrel. But today, they actually got to meet the man that allegedly no one wanted to talk to in the Trump Organization. And the Michael Cohen that they met, though, is much more subdued than the man who was described as a highly excitable person. Cohen on the stand today even poked fun at how he has been described. So, the question is, how is the jury going to ultimately receive all of this testimony? I want to bring in jury and trial consultant Robert Hirschhorn. [23:25:01] Robert, it is an interesting question. When the person sitting in front of you is so very different from the person that you've been hearing about in a lot of ways, how is the jury going to reconcile that? ROBERT HIRSCHHORN, JURY AND TRIAL CONSULTANT: So, they came in with a set of expectations, and he completely did not match up to it. And as I've been telling everybody, it's not how a witness does on direct examination, it's how he acts on cross. So, if he maintains the same kind of state of mind, if he continues to be calm, if he maintains his aplomb, the jury is going to be much more likely to believe him. But remember, Abby, this is the person that went from saying, I take a bullet for Trump, to the guy who's now shooting bullets at Trump. And he's going to come in with a lot of baggage, and I expect the defense is going to go right after him. PHILLIP: Yeah, I think it's going to be a very different vibe in that courtroom. I was in there today, in the morning, and it's so striking how this jury is. I mean, listen, my hat goes off to them because they know that they have a really important job to do. And they walk into that room stone-faced. They're looking straight ahead. They walk directly, one in front of the other, to the jury box. And they take their seats. And maybe more than half of them pull out pens and pads, and they're scribbling down notes practically the entire session. It was about over five hours today with Michael Cohen. I wonder what you think that signals to them, signals about them, and about what kind of jury they're going to be because there are some juries that are going to be about the letter of the law, and then there are some juries that might be about what they feel in their gut. HIRSCHHORN: So, they know this is a historic case. And I want to tell the whole audience, regardless of the outcome, even if it's a hung jury, regardless, we ought to give kudos to this jury because it's a really difficult job. That's why they call it jury duty, not jury fun, not jury vacation. PHILLIP: Yeah. HIRSCHHORN: So, we ought to be proud of them. So, Abby, here's the thing. The fact that we haven't lost a single juror should signal to everybody how seriously they are taking this. The fact that they are taking copious notes, they are going to do the very best job they can deciding this particular case. And I want to tell everybody, they're going to hold the government, or in this case the prosecution, to the burden of proof. And I'm telling you, because this jury is so smart, they've got two lawyers on the jury. This is -- they've got a PHD on this jury. This jury is so smart that if the prosecution doesn't prove their case, they understand their job is going to be to find this defendant not guilty. I've been saying, Abby, this could very well be the O.J. Simpson number two. Everybody knew O.J. was guilty, but the state didn't prove their case. It's possible this could happen here. And the big reason why, Abby, where is Weisselberg? PHILLIP: Well, okay, I'm so glad -- HIRSCHHORN: This jury -- PHILLIP: -- I'm so glad you brought that up. That has become the elephant in the room, especially after today. If you're the jury, and you hear Allen Weisselberg, and you're like, where is this guy? And the judge, when he dealt with this issue, they weren't in the room for it. So, are they going to go into that deliberation box and say, why on earth? What was the prosecution afraid of? Were they afraid to bring Weisselberg to the stand? HIRSCHHORN: Yeah, because he's either going to support Trump or worse, he's going to take the fifth, which tells the jury he's the guilty guy, not Trump. Here's the thing, Abby. The state has corroborated a lot of things that Cohen has done, but what they haven't been able to corroborate are the individual communications between Cohen and Trump. And the prosecution is really hoping that the jurors are going to believe Cohen's version of what happened. But there's a perfect answer. The answer is called Allen Weisselberg. The jury -- and again, we got a smart jury with two lawyers. PHILLIP: Yeah. HIRSCHHORN: These lawyers know that the state has to prove their case. If there's no Weisselberg, there may not be a case. PHILLIP: Yeah. HIRSCHHORN: So, even if the jury believe Cohen, even if they believe Cohen, they still may be wondering, where's Weisselberg? PHILLIP: All right. That's very, very interesting. Robert Hirschhorn, thank you very much for bringing that to us. HIRSCHHORN: Thank you, Abby. PHILLIP: And on that note, let's come out to the panel here. I mean, Jen, where is Allen Weisselberg? He's all over Michael Cohen's testimony. But does he hang over this case at this point? RODGERS: He does right now. I mean, it's going to have to be addressed. And the parties are currently in the process of talking to the judge about what's going to happen, right? Prosecutors wanted to introduce the severance agreement that Weisselberg had with the Trump Organization to explain why he's not available, because all this money is still coming to him if he doesn't cooperate voluntarily with law enforcement. [23:30:01] They said they'd also take a stipulation that he's in prison for perjury and therefore unavailable. They're probably not going to get those things, but they will get -- PHILLIP: Yeah. I mean, the judge actually said today they weren't going to get -- RODGERS: They're not going to get the severance agreement. But they'll get some sort of instruction. I mean, they have to get some sort of instruction that -- that somehow not just that -- it is not just the typical missing witness. Don't hold it against either side. You can't speculate as to why he's not here. I think they'll get something better than that. But what that actually looks like, the parties are still fighting about. But they have to get something. He's definitely the elephant. COATES: He's not missing. He's in Rikers, just so everyone knows. He's nowhere to find him. He's got like an inmate number as well. And so -- but the reason there is the conundrum is because they can't call. They can't bring this severance agreement in for the purpose of showing that he's not available. They also can't necessarily bring him in to testify, knowing that he might plead the Fifth throughout and not actually substance testimony. They're in a real pickle here, thinking about how you do it. By the same token, they've tried to call everyone else but Weisselberg. They called, you know, Makani (ph). They've called another bookkeeper as well. Could that be enough? MOORE: I don't think so. I mean, I really think that they're going to need to have him come in because he does -- he is the one in the room that supposedly has this sort of intimate details about what was said and who did what and who approved what and how it was going to work to back up Cohen. I mean, they've corroborated some stuff like, you know, that the sun came up and that Trump writes with a sharpie. I mean, they've corroborated some -- I mean, really, they've corroborated some things like that. But when it comes to sort of the crux of it, when it comes to what we're talking about in the indictment, that's where they needed him, and I think that's going to be a problem for them. MILLS: Yeah, because it's two things to this. We have to remember two parts to this case. One is the business records component, and then two is, did he do -- did he hide this for the purposes of the election? I think Cohen today solidified that this was done for the purposes of the election. But that other component, the business records being doctored, Weisselberg is the one that would be able to testify to that and confirm that. And Cohen can't do it. He said he had the conversation with Weisselberg. Weisselberg went into the room, a meeting with Trump, and that's where they discussed it. But he can't talk about what was said in that meeting. So, nobody knows that. That piece is still hanging. I think the door is still open a little bit, and they need him. COATES: The judge, on that point -- I mean, you've given a million instructions on some circumstantial evidence, right? Jury, you're going to look outside. In the evening, you went to bed, there was green grass. You woke up in the morning, it was covered in snow. GRASSO: Right. COATES: Then it must have snowed. GRASSO: It must have snowed. Exactly. And so, I take a bit of a contrary view. They've got a killer piece of evidence that has been put in today. And I alluded to that earlier. The Weisselberg notes, not notes on any piece of paper, by the way. The essential consulting bank statement with the $130,000. COATES: They've been authenticated, right? GRASSO: They've been authenticated, admitted into evidence through Jeff McConney, the controller. But then they were doubly admitted today by Cohen who said, I don't only recognize Weisselberg's handwriting, I saw him make those notes. And I think, substantively, one of the most important things for the people's case that Michael Cohen did today, he brings that piece of paper right into Trump's office. That's the piece of paper that they're using to set up the scheme, the scheme where they're going to pay Michael Cohen the $420,000 and disguise it as lawyer's fees. As far as the evidence, there are 34 counts. You know what I think the nine strongest counts are? The nine checks Trump signed for $35,000. The people have put in evidence through, here's a guy who has bragged about cashing 50 cent checks. The jury is going to be expected to believe he signed nine checks for $35,000 each for Michael Cohen, who was performing no independent legal services unless he was aware of that. I take a contrary view. I think it's a compelling case. COATES: It makes an interesting point because we have to remember, it's not all just invoices or checks. I mean, there's a lot of different counts. There are 34 and they could very well find some and then none. How did this play in the courtroom, though? I mean, we're talking about the elephant in the room that was not there, Allen Weisselberg. Did you get a sense being in the courtroom today that the jury was wanting more? CRANE-NEWMAN: Well, it was kind of interesting today. You know, there were so few objections because so much of the evidence we saw of Cohen was already in. So, there -- I mean, there were about 27 objections overall and about half of them were sustained. But it was pretty -- there was not one sidebar today. So, if you think about Stormy last week, you know, the lawyers were constantly up at the bench. And so, it was kind of, you know, it flowed quite smoothly in comparison to some other witnesses that we've seen. And a lot of these documents that have come in, though, you know, we kind of learn after the fact their significance. [23:35:00] So last week, when we saw that statement with Allen Weisselberg's handwriting on it, you know, it's what could be a potential smoking gun. You know, Weisselberg signing, like calculating how much money Cohen is owed on a statement for the literal alleged hush money. And today, we heard about again that Cohen's handwriting was also on that statement. The $50,000, that was a new piece of information. GRASSO: RedFinch. CRANE-NEWMAN: RedFinch. We didn't know that before. So, you know, I think it'll be very interesting to see when the prosecution gives their closing statement and they kind of tie this all up together. But what was very interesting about Cohen today, I think, is he kind of wove together so much of what we've heard. These documents, the different witnesses. COATES: Yeah. It's important to think about all this. And again, the jury hearing it before, the pre-corroboration is so crucial as a strategy, knowing you've got a witness with quite the Achilles heel. Thank you so much, everyone, on this. Trump was in court also, by the way, with an entourage in tow, including the V.P hopeful, J.D. Vance. It's all part of some kind of an audition and maybe a strategy for how to attack his enemies. We'll discuss it next. (COMMERCIAL BREAK) [23:40:17] COATES: Well, it was the moment everyone was waiting for. Michael Cohen, the prosecution's star witness, finally on the stand. But Donald Trump and his campaign, while they came prepared, parading more Trump allies into this courtroom today than any other day of the trial. PHILLIP: In attendance were vice presidential contender J.D. Vance, the senator from Ohio also there, Senator Tommy Tuberville of Alabama, Congresswoman Nicole Malliotakis of the state of New York, and attorneys general from Alabama and Iowa, Steve Marshall and Brenna Bird, respectively. Former Republican presidential candidate Vivek Ramaswamy is expected to be there tomorrow also, I think, in the veepstakes. But it all begs the question, why? Why is this even happening and why now? Back with us is Attorney Donte Mills, CNN contributor Leah Wright Rigueur, and CNN political analyst Natasha Alford. Donte, I want to get you on this because I think that there's all the circus of it, but it's kind of important. These other people who are not Trump, the J.D. Vances of the world, they're out there in front of the court, they're making all kinds of false statements, but they're also doing what they know Trump can't do, which is attack the witnesses, attack the judge's daughter. That's kind of -- look, it may not be crossing a legal line, but it's crossing a line in a way. MILLS: It definitely is. And you said this, Abby, when we talked about before the gag order, you said it's actually working, right? Trump has stopped -- he stopped talking as much, and he's not crossing the line, but we see he's employing other people to do it. J.D. Vance did that today, talked about Merchan's daughter, which is not supposed to happen. The problem is I don't know what authority the judge has to control what other people are saying. PHILLIP: Yeah. MILLS: So, this may continue to go on. But as long as it's not Trump doing it, then there's no punishment. COATES: Well, that's the whole design of it, right? That's the part that's important to think about. And also, who's doing it? I mean, these are members of Congress who are being brought in as well, who are just the optics of it, Natasha, there to support him for a criminal case involving actions taken to try to hide from the American public allegedly a payment like this. NATASHA ALFORD, CNN POLITICAL ANALYST: Well, Laura, there's almost like a pre-filter selected for the type of people who are willing to do these things. You know, J.D. Vance, willing to flip-flop, right? First, he was anti-Trump. Now, all of a sudden, he's in Trump's camp. It's about power. It's about proximity to power. And I think that this is a test. This is the loyalty test to see who's willing to do whatever it takes to speak in Trump's favor. PHILLIP: And, of course, one of the things Trump was really excited about today were the polls. A big New York Times-Siena poll showing that he's leading in a lot of battleground states. And that is a snapshot of the race as it is right now. Essentially, taken all together, this isn't either a tied race or Trump is slightly ahead. And that is happening in spite of all of this, this legal (INAUDIBLE) that he's a part of. LEAH WRIGHT RIGUEUR, CNN CONTRIBUTOR: Well, I think there are two things that are going on. The first is that it tells us that the Biden administration is having some real struggles with key kind of demographics that make up the alliance or the coalitions that are necessary to win, for the Biden administration to win re-election. But the other thing is that there is a trial that is going on in the court of public opinion. And so, this is why all of these people who are coming and auditioning for the Trump show, the Trump veepstakes, whatever we're going to call it, but also putting that messaging out there, if you listen to what they're saying, they're actually making the argument that this is injustice, this is unfair, this is not a legitimate process. And so, they're doing the work that Trump cannot do, one, because there's a gag order, but also, two, because he is locked up, you know, pardon the pun, but he is locked up in court in trials and quite literally has to take care of the business of, you know, being under investigation and being indicted. So, what we're seeing here is the outcome and the play-by-play of this. And what it's, I think, telling us is that his strategy is actually working. So, it's the combination of the Biden administration failing in a lot of ways, but also the Trump administration's strategy in this kind of chaotic moment working. COATES: But here's a split screen as well. I mean, there's a strategy being employed now, maybe rolled out by the vice president, Kamala Harris, not at all fending off any legal attacks, but being more and more increasingly visible. And here she was today talking in D.C. about breaking down barriers. And she wasn't mincing her words. In fact, many say she's being a little bit more relatable. Listen to this. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) KAMALA HARRIS, VICE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: My mother would say to me, don't you ever let anybody tell you who you are. You tell them who you are. We have to know that sometimes, people will open the door for you and leave it open. Sometimes, they won't. [23:45:00] And then you need to kick that (bleep) door down. (LAUGHTER) (APPLAUSE) Excuse my language. (LAUGHTER) (END VIDEO CLIP) COATES: I mean -- PHILLIP: Let me tell you, it's like -- it's like catnip for reporters to have a politician curse, especially using the "F" word. (LAUGHTER) ALFORD: I love it. I mean, the vile things that Donald Trump has said, that he has been allowed to get away with, like let Vice President Harris have her moment of authenticity. And I think that's what people want. They don't want talking points. They want to know that they can believe in these candidates. And what struck me about that poll that Leah was just talking about, 50% of people say the economy is bad, and that's against all of the numbers that we talk about, right? Stocks being up. You know, jobs being created. And so, there's a disconnect. And that is -- that's a heart issue. How are you connecting with the minds and the hearts of the people? And I think you just have to be real. That's how you do it. WRIGHT RIGUEUR: I also think it's important that she is making part -- she's making messages where she is really strong. So, it's not just about, you know, I think kicking the door down. She's also really strong in messaging on abortion. We know that abortion is one of these things that Trump is extremely vulnerable on. She has also been going to various HBCUs across the country and either speaking in person or doing these videotaped messages because I think the Biden administration understands just how important Black voters are to this coalition. So, she's really working, I think, working the campaign trail in the ways that she should have been doing from the very beginning. COATES: Really important point to think about. And truly a moment of authenticity. We remember the big effing deal. PHILLIP: She seemed to surprise herself, honestly, with that one. (LAUGHTER) She was a little bit surprised. COATES: We had a beeper for this, like a beep machine for a primetime. I don't know. Thank you, everyone, so much. Ahead, a story very personal to me. One dentist changing the lives of so many, frankly, just like my dad did. My champion for change is next. (COMMERCIAL BREAK) [23:51:23] COATES: It's one of the best times of the year. It's time for "Champions for Change." Look at the unsung people whose ideas and innovations are dramatically improving lives, business, and society. Well, tonight's story is personal for me. You know, my dad is a dentist who always gave back to the community. So, I knew firsthand about the power of a smile and how life-changing it could be to give someone the ability to be free to speak and show themselves as they wanted to be seen. My champion for change is Dr. Dondre Simpson, who is both providing dental care and hope to the people who need it most. (BEGIN VIDEOTAPE) DONDRE SIMPSON, DENTIST: How you doing, man? Doing good? KATRINA UPTON, NEW FOUNDATIONS HOME FOR CHILDREN (voice-over): He does so much more than clean teeth. SIMPSON: Awesome. UPTON: He teaches. He motivates. He's like a therapist. He's so much more than a dentist. UNKNOWN: How are you? COATES: You have a demonstrated philosophy of providing care and respect and dignity to anyone who needs your help. SIMPSON: I do what I do because this is what God put me on this earth for. COATES: I'm actually the daughter of a dentist who really devoted his life to public service and ensuring dental care was given to people who are most in need. He would go into the prisons. He really believed in meeting people where they were. You also wanted to go into the prisons, I understand, as well. Not only to provide that service, but you recognize in many ways that, why should they be denied the dignity of care? SIMPSON: There's a shortage of dentists in prisons around the country. Most inmates, I'd say 99.9% of them, they really are grateful that they get to get out of pain. If I can be courteous and kind and respectful and do my job and treat you good, regardless of who you are, where you are, that's my goal. UPTON: This is New Foundations Home for Children. We have kids in the foster care system and we have kids in the juvenile justice system. He serves an underserved population. He's not making a lot of money off of these kids. He comes because he feels led to be here. JEROME PRICE, DENTAL PATIENT: I got here around 2019 because I had other foster home that I was at and that didn't work out. As he cleans my teeth, he talks to me about my ambitions. He remembers everything I tell him. And I'm not his only client. SIMPSON: So that's mind-blowing, to know that if I can plant a seed in somebody unknowingly, but just doing my job, doing the way that I do it, it will influence them to make good decisions and be a more productive citizen. UPTON (voice-over): He's absolutely creating a brighter future for these kids. HAZEL HARPER, DENTIS: After he graduated from Howard, he practiced with me for about nine years. SIMPSON: My aunt, Hazel, she's the reason that I am a dentist today. HARPER: And I wanted to make sure that we were treating Medicaid population patients that had public insurance. And my goal was to make sure that Dondre knew that in life, everyone needs to be treated with dignity and respect. COATES: My father's work inspired me to be a champion for social justice. He is someone who could have done anything with the mind that he has. And he always chose to reinvest into the communities. I used to work for him in his office. Now, he did fire me because I talked too much. I never forgot the smiles in that office. And you know, I am a Black woman in America. Intergenerational wealth has often alluded inter-generations. [23:55:00] But what has not alluded us is the passing down of the knowledge of the community service that imparts a sense of morality and justice within us. And so, to hear that he was inspired by his aunt and to feel compelled within himself to pay it forward is the highest form of intergenerational wealth. And in that, we are family. (END VIDEOTAPE) COATES: Well, be sure to tune in Saturday at 9 p.m. Eastern for the "Champions for Change" one hour Special. Hey, thank you all for watching. Our coverage continues with "Anderson Cooper 360" next. (COMMERCIAL BREAK)