Anderson Cooper 360 Degrees Aired May 14, 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: And good evening. Thanks for joining us. We were expecting fireworks in the first day of cross-examination of Michael Cohen, the one-time fixer for the former president, turned witness in his criminal hush money trial and we got it. No sooner had the defense begun after morning of the prosecution front-ending all possible attacks on Cohen's character than defense attorney Todd Blanche repeated a colorful, shall we say, insult that Cohen had used to describe Blanche online. That prompted a sidebar with the judge who asked Blanche why are you making this about yourself. The attorney said that he wasn't, that he had a, quote, "right to show the witness' bias." The judge sustained the objection. The trial got back underway, but it long - wasn't long before Blanche returned to Cohen's propensity to mouth off on social media. Blanche asked Cohen, quote, "'And on that same TikTok, so again on April 23rd, you referred to President Trump when he left the courtroom, you said that he goes right into that little cage, which is where he belongs in a,' and I'm going to clean up the language here, 'effing cage, like an animal.'" Do you recall saying that?" Blanche asked. Cohen responded, quote, "I recall saying that." That sort of set the tone for the rest of the hearing when the former president's attorney, a former federal prosecutor, tried to undermine Cohen's credibility as well as his recall of conversations with the former president. It wasn't the only drama either. Allies of the former president, including House Speaker Mike Johnson and several others who appeared to be in town for a VP audition, showed their numbers. And for the second day in a row said what a former president under gag order cannot. Joining us tonight, a former U.S. attorney, Michael Moore, former federal prosecutors; Jeffrey Toobin and Temidayo Aganga-Williams. Also CNN Anchor Kaitlan Collins who was in the courtroom this morning; former federal prosecutor, Elie Honig; and correspondent Kara Scannell, who was also in the courtroom. Kara, what was your impression inside? KARA SCANNELL, CNN CORRESPONDENT: The cross seemed to be the last thing that we all heard, so it kind of sticks in our memory. But this morning, what the prosecution also did was use Cohen to wrap up their case, going over month by month, all of the elements of the crime, the alleged crime, the invoices that Cohen said were falsified, the check stuff that he said, the descriptions were falsified. And then the checks signed by - majority of them signed by Donald Trump that he said was all false, all because of the retainer. Then the prosecution tried to get ahead of all of Cohen's past legal run ins and everything. But then the cross, I mean, that was - we were expecting some fireworks here. What stood out to me was Cohen remained composed the whole time, even as he was parsing words with Todd Blanche over whether he had lied to the special counsel during the Russia, Russia, Russia investigation or whether he had given an inaccurate statement. They were going back and forth. Cohen even killed the whole time and then relenting and telling Blanche, okay, I lied. But he didn't he didn't break his cool and he didn't give in on some of these other things. But the real theme of the day was Blanche trying to establish by throwing Cohen's words back at him from his podcast, from his book, that he hates Trump and that he's on a revenge tour and he's trying to make money doing it. Cohen acknowledging made $4.3 million on the sale of two of his books. COOPER: Which is actually quite a lot for the sale of 2,000 books. And Kaitlan, what was it like in court? KAITLAN COLLINS, CNN ANCHOR: Not surprising, though. I mean, he is - he was Donald Trump's former attorney who took guilty pleas and went to jail. I mean, I think there was a lot for him to write about that people were interested in. COOPER: And a lot of time to write. COLLINS: And a lot of time to write and reflect, as he talked about and testified today. I do think the prosecution's arguments this morning with Michael Cohen were really interesting for the reasons that Kara just laid out, but also because there were a few moments where everyone realized it was a big moment from his testimony where Michael Cohen said the reason he paid Stormy Daniels that money was to ensure that the story wouldn't come out to hurt Donald Trump's chances of winning the election. And if there had been no election, he said he never would have paid Stormy Daniels most likely. There were those few moments that kind of - as we were hearing about the documents and about comments he made about Trump, it kind of crystallized why Michael Cohen was there. What really surprised me is when the cross started this afternoon, Donald Trump had this demeanor of where he was kind of just closing his eyes again for sustained periods of time. He wasn't always watching the witness stand. I believe only once or twice was he seen kind of looking over because he has to lean over to actually see the witness. And that's not the way anyone expected him to be engaged, I think, especially as it was his attorney's time to grill Michael Cohen. He - when Stormy Daniels was getting cross examined, he was paying quite close attention. It was not the same way today, which stood out to me, given, of course, his hatred for Michael Cohen is much higher even than Stormy Daniels. [20:05:06] COOPER: Elie, how do you think Todd Blanche did? I mean, he is actually not an experienced trial attorney, correct? ELIE HONIG, CNN SENIOR LEGAL ANALYST: Well, he's experienced trial attorney on the prosecution side, but defending is very different. And by the way, prosecutors are not very experienced at cross examination. I'm just going to say candidly, I thought the cross examination was unfocused and underwhelming. I followed minute by minute as we were doing our live coverage. I just reread the whole thing. There were moments, I think, where he breaks through and scores points. But by and large, he was jumping from topic to topic. He missed some obvious moments. I'll give you an example. The first question, which you talked about in the warm up there, Anderson, was wildly inappropriate and I think miscast the stakes. Blanche came right out and he said, we've never met, you and me, Michael Cohen, right? And Michael Cohen said no. And he said, yet you called me a crying little shit on TikTok. Immediate objection, sustained. It's not relevant what Michael Cohen thinks of the lawyer. It's very relevant what Michael Cohen thinks of the defendant, which he got to later. But if you're Todd Blanche, you don't want to make it about Michael Cohen versus the defense lawyer. You want it to be Michael Cohen versus the truth. So I'm not impressed by what I've seen from the cross so far. He has a day to figure it out. He said he's going to take all day Thursday, but I think he needs a change in course here. COOPER: What do you guys say? MICHAEL MOORE, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: Well, I'm glad to be with you. I do think some of what he did was pure tactics. I mean, I think this moving around and not having this timeline cross examination is a good thing because, you know that Cohen, like any other prosecution witness, has been prepped ad nauseam to tell their story. So you want to get them if you're cross-examining, you want to make them tell the story on your terms and not to follow the script that they've been in, so I kind of see that. I really took away that the jury's probably seeing and thinking right now that Cohen is a grifter and a waffler. He clearly is making money off this. He clearly somebody who's got his hand in the till to try to sell his books. And as long as he can keep hating Trump and things go south for Trump, then he can make money. COOPER: Question is does the - do they look at the president - former president that way? I mean, (INAUDIBLE) ... MOORE: I don't know yet. I mean, honestly, because - then Cohen didn't help himself. He's kind of critical here because he's the only thing the state has to make this connection to make this case a felony and that - to move it from a misdemeanor business records case to say we were doing it because we were trying to, basically, break the federal law, the campaign finance law. And so he's got to do that and right now he's been so hedgy and cagey during his cross and not want to answer questions, juries pick up on that. I mean, they will pick up if he answers the questions completely and gives this very vivid memory to a prosecutor and then to the defense attorney. He suddenly doesn't remember what he did yesterday or is not so sure about it. They pick up on that. COOPER: Jeff? JEFFREY TOOBIN, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: I don't think that's true at all about the felony issue. I think Hope Hicks, who was obviously favorably disposed towards Trump, also talks about how they had to keep Stormy Daniels quiet because of the election. I think it was, as Elie said, a kind of stumbling start in terms of the theatrics. But he certainly did establish that Trump - that Cohen really can't stand Trump, and he hates him, and he's bitter and he's on a revenge ... COOPER: Not hard to establish. TOOBIN: Not hard to establish. What I'm waiting for is an explanation for the evidence other than the prosecution's evidence. (INAUDIBLE) version. Look, Trump - Cohen paid one hundred-thirty thousand dollars to Stormy Daniels. Trump paid him $420,000. The prosecution has a clear explanation for why these transactions took place. And if they believe that, he's going to be convicted. The one thing we didn't get at all today and there's a long time to go is, well, okay, if that's not the explanation for why this money changed hands, what is it? And Blanche didn't do any of that today and we'll see if he ever can come up with it. COOPER: Do you believe - do they have to provide that or is just a reasonable doubt enough to poke holes in what the explanation is by the prosecution? TOOBIN: Well, you need - I mean, yes, reasonable doubt is enough, but doubt, you know, as prosecutors like to say, doubts have to be based on reason. I mean, there has to be a reason that these transactions took place other than the prosecution's explanation and I haven't heard it yet. COOPER: Temidayo, what do you ... TEMIDAYO AGANGA-WILLIAMS, FORMER FEDERAL PROSECUTOR: I mean, I think if I'm the prosecutors, I'm feeling pretty good right now. I think they're on their way to conviction. And I think, the entire burden always, always rests on the prosecution, but jurors are everyday rational people. And at some point they start to need a counter narrative. You have to give them something to hold on to. You simply can't say that this guy lacks credibility. I think what was effective here is because throughout this trial we've heard so much, frankly, about what a scummy guy Michael Cohen is. Multiple witnesses, including Hope Hicks, have said the problems about Michael Cohen. And by the time we get to Michael Cohen, there's a way in which I think he was a little bit of under-promising and over-performing. And when he gets up there and he comes off from what I've read with a calm demeanor, right? He's not fighting. He's not over the top. He's really coming and he's honest. And what's effective, I think, is that on direct, a lot of the most damaging things that Michael Cohen come out through the prosecution and that's on purpose. [20:10:06] Because by the time you get to the defense, you're trying to go over some of these old threads. But it's not for the first time you're hearing that he has issues with Donald Trump or that he's lied before or that he's a criminal. He said all these things before and owed none to them. So I think it loses some of the oomph that when - the defense lawyers come up. COOPER: Let me ... COLLINS: Let's say the thing is you have to - Michael Cohen needs to be flustered. That is what Trump's team is trying to do. It didn't seem like they were very successful at that today. There were a few points where he said, well, that's not a lie. It's an inaccuracy. And Todd Blanche said, okay, what's the difference? And then he said, okay, it's a lie. And so he did - was caught off guard a few moments on those parts. But when the prosecution was up and they were asking Michael Cohen about what it was like for the FBI to come and to raid his hotel that he was staying in because his house was under renovation, his home, his office and what that was like. He was describing that he was frightened, despondent, angry. His life had been turned upside down. And he talked about this call that he got from Trump a few days later. And we had heard at the time Trump called him maybe four or so days after the raid - called him back, really. And he said that Trump told him, don't worry, I'm the president of the United States. There's nothing here. Everything's going to be okay. Stay tough. You're going to be okay. And then they went into this pressure campaign to keep an attorney who was aligned with Donald Trump to not flip and cooperate with prosecutors. My question was how the jury takes something like that, where they kind of did this compelling story of what Michael Cohen was facing. COOPER: Let me just ask you, as somebody who knows Michael Cohen from - I mean, I don't know how much you actually know him, but from television and probably interviewing him, was he likable on the stand? I mean, was he the Michael Cohen who is the guy in the TikTok videos who ... COLLINS: No. COOPER: ... seems to like hear - to hear himself talk and he was not that person. COLLINS: As you know, I spent five hours this weekend watching Michael Cohen's ... COOPER: Yes. COLLINS: ... testimony from Capitol Hill. And it actually is really informative for how he was on the stand I thought. I think if you want to get an idea of what Michael Cohen is like on the stand and Kara was there for the cross so she can answer that better today. Then that's a really good way, because - and Lanny Davis, his attorney says, we testify - we tried the night before. Michael Cohen blew a gasket when they were kind of impersonating what Jim Jordan and Mark Meadows would do. And Lanny Davis said, great, if you do that, Republicans will be high fiving you tomorrow. It was a similar method today where he was really trying to be calm. He was saying, yes, ma'am. No, ma'am. He was looking at the jury. I mean, he was really trying to not be the boisterous Michael Cohen that you see on TikTok or on television. SCANNELL: I mean, extremely controlled, especially for anyone who's dealt with Michael Cohen or seen him in interviews. He can be so bombastic and he is so reactive to what someone says and almost always wants to have the last word. And in this, he is - it's just tremendous control on his part of answering the questions even when Todd Blanche is going toe to toe with him parsing things, he is not raising his voice. He is answering the specific question. And at times he tried to add a little bit more to it. And so Blanche would punch back and say, that's not what I asked you. But he didn't take the bait and he didn't react in the way that I think a lot of us have seen Michael Cohen react. COLLINS: Yes. Not taking the bait is notable for Michael Cohen. COOPER: Yes. SCANNELL: Yes. COOPER: Temidayo, were you surprised that the prosecution is not calling everybody else that they're resting on Michael Cohen? Because there was a lot of talk beforehand of is he really the best person to leave them with from the prosecution standpoint? It must be a sign the prosecutors feel like he did a good job. AGANGA-WILLIAMS: Well, I think what it shows you is that the Michael Cohen we saw today was part of the plan and he's showing up the way they expected him to show up. When I was a prosecutor and handling trials, you want to put weak witnesses kind of in the middle, right? It's not - it's - you don't want to end on someone that you think is going to get up there, get battered and really end on a weak note, because that's not what you want, either the defense to go into closing arguments with or you want the jury to be thinking of the last bit of your case. The fact that they're ending with him, to me, says, one, they feel confident they've made their case. And I think, two, that they have belief that he's been a strong witness for them. I think they planned this. I mean, prosecutors are not going to - that's not a last minute decision that ... COOPER: Right. AGANGA-WILLIAMS: ... you know what? We'll just stop with him. At that point, they've thought about the elements, they thought about their case. And I think it bears out because by the time we get to Michael Cohen, a lot of the critical elements of this case from David Pecker and Hope Hicks, like Jeffrey was saying, have already been established. So Michael Cohen, I think, is really crossing the Ts. But he was not a witness that you thought before he got on that this case was bare bones and he had to build the entire thing up. He's here to really close it up. TOOBIN: And I think Kara's point about how they ended the direct examination with putting in the checks and the documents, it's important to remember for all the drama, this is a case about false business records. They put the records in front of the jury at the end of their case and I think that was very much intentional. COOPER: Yes. TOOBIN: And if there's a conviction, they will have made the right decision. COOPER: Kara Scannell, thanks for being with us. Everyone else is going to stick around. [20:15:00] The full transcript of today's testimony has just been released, including more of Cohen's colorful descriptions of the former president on social media and on his podcast and just why the defense wanted those words in the record. Plus, what the jury may make out of these attacks on Michael Cohen's character. A jury consultant joins us ahead. (COMMERCIAL BREAK) [20:19:08] COOPER: So this time now, we've just gotten the full transcripts of the contentious testimony between Michael Cohen and the former president's defense attorneys. They have come out. We should point out that opposing counsel in the hush money trial got a preview of Michael Cohen as a witness back in October when he testified in the former president's civil fraud trial, including how he would handle the credibility issue. This is what he said ahead of that testimony. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) MICHAEL COHEN, FMR. PERSONAL ATTORNEY FOR DONALD TRUMP: My credibility should not be in question. Yes, I pled guilty to a 1001 violation, which was lying to Congress. But I have also requested that people continue the sentence. And the sentence is I did it at the direction of in concert with and for the benefit of Donald J. Trump. (END VIDEO CLIP) COOPER: Joining us now with those transcripts is our very own John Berman. So they - defense was painting Michael Cohen as a man who hates Trump and bents on revenge. What are some of the highlights or the lowlights? [20:20:01] JOHN BERMAN, CNN ANCHOR: Well, in this case, I suppose there should be a warning here about language because it crosses over from PG-13 into rated R here. You spoke a little bit about how Todd Blanche right out of the gate said crying little S. Elie said the word here. About five minutes later, he dipped in even more to some greatest hits from Michael Cohen. He's talking about Cohen's TikTok. "You also talked on social media during this trial about President Trump, have you not?" Michael Cohen says, "Sounds correct, yes." Blanche says, "So, for example, on April 23rd, which is after the trial started, correct?" Cohen says, "Yes." You referred to President Trump as dictator D bag, didn't you?" Cohen says, "Sounds like something I said," which, by the way, is one of the answers he gives very commonly or sounds like something I said. Blanche says, "And on that same TikTok, so, again, on April 23rd, you referred to President Trump when he left the courtroom. You said, 'he goes right into that little cage, which is where he belongs, in a effing little cage, like an animal.' Do you recall saying that?" Cohen says, "I recall saying that." And then a few minutes later in the trial, Blanche starts talking about his podcast, Cohen's podcast. Blanche says, "You were called the first one in 2020 as a Cheeto-dusted cartoon villain?" Something he called Trump. Cohen says, "That also sounds like something I said." Again, his common response. Now, Blanche says, "Now, do you recall around that same time, October 2020, you started talking about your hope that Trump would be convicted of a crime, correct?" Cohen says, "I don't know if those are the exact words that I said, but the sentiment is correct." "You think you might have said, 'I truly effing hope that this man ends up in prison,' is that exact?" Cohen says, "It sounds like my language on Mea Culpa." HONIG: The fact that Michael Cohen's so obviously and over the top is consumed by hatred for Donald Trump and wants him in prison and celebrating and is selling T-shirts is outrageous. We sort of take it for granted because this has just been Michael Cohen's public persona for the last five, six years. But this should be a bonanza for cross- examination with three federal - former federal prosecutors here. What would you do if you found out the eve of a big trial that your star witness was selling t-shirts showing the defendant in prison? You'd have to think hard about dismissing the case. That is a major flaw in the defense ... TOOBIN: Especially if he's Cheeto-dusted. HONIG: Yes. I mean ... TOOBIN: That would be worst. HONIG: No, I mean, you're right. Look, the - Michael Cohen has a sort of way with words that can get funny. But laughing about a defendant going to jail is I think it's offensive to the jury. That's not for Michael Cohen to say and fantasize about. TOOBIN: No, that's the worst part of all the things that Cohen has said. It's one thing to say he's terrible. I don't like him, use all sorts of swear words. But if you are talking about the results of this case ... HONIG: Exactly. TOOBIN: I mean, that's what this case is about, whether Donald Trump is eligible to go to prison or not and you have Cohen campaigning for that. That's a very negative, negative side of that. HONIG: Blanche spent the ... TOOBIN: And Blanche - and ... HONIG: He should have spent the first hour on that. TOOBIN: Well, I mean, he - I don't think the jury is going to forget it. He spent some time on it. MOORE: Yes. I mean, I don't - I think we also have to remember these jurors are not like we are, right? I mean, they may not be watching everything prior testimony and stuff that Cohen has said. And so our expectation is about how he would perform and what he would do might be a little different than what their expectations are. But he's - he is the crucial witness. I mean, I disagree with you about the - have they proven the case? Because when I went back to look at the indictment today, basically they've got to show that he intended to commit another crime, not that he tried to help his campaign. They've got to show that he actually had the intent to commit another crime. And I don't think they've gotten there yet. And that's why - that's - they hoped they've gotten there with Cohen, but that's - he's got to be the one. And so without that, that's why they're trying to ding his credibility up on - time after time and whether it's through the comments that he makes on social media with - how he acts on the stand, the wishy washiness of his answers, I mean, that's what they're after. So, look, you can't believe him. But don't forget, he ran a tape on his client and didn't tell anybody. COOPER: Temidayo, you believe that they have proof (INAUDIBLE) ... AGANGA-WILLIAMS: Yes, I think they have. And I think, when you're dealing with a cooperator, what you have to think about is corroboration. Federal prosecutors, all kind of prosecutors every day, they put up murderers, for example, and they're cooperators. They put up all kind of people who do - who've done awful, terrible things, much worse than selling t-shirts and wishing that someone goes down. They've tried to kill people. They've killed sometimes the victims in that very case and juries believe them. Because if you're going to challenge the credibility, you have to place it against a corroboration, I think that's where the counter narrative of explaining why is Donald Trump signing these $35,000 checks again and again and again. They're obviously not for legal fees. I don't think that's a reasonable explanation. So I think the Cohen question is going to come down to the corroboration, when the jury goes back and they think about all of these witnesses. They think about these documents. They think about what is a reasonable conclusion here, because it's beyond a reasonable doubt, not beyond all doubt. And I think that's where the real challenge for the former president here. COLLINS: Well ... MOORE: But you don't ... COLLINS: Go ahead. MOORE: You don't make an axe murderer, your cooperator, to prove a jaywalking case and that's sort of where we're at. [20:25:02] I mean, they've taken somebody and that - he's got all this baggage and all this stuff and he can't keep his mouth shut even during the trial and they're putting him forward to prove basically a documents case and I think that may hang with you. I agree with you. You've got somebody and you're prosecuting El Chapo and you want to bring in the - somebody that's cut off heads and sold drugs and carries guns and all that as your cooperator, because that's the one closest to the organization, you may have to do it, or the Hells Angels or whatever it is. But here, you're using a guy that is so compromised, I think. And they had to spend their whole case trying to prehabilitate him, to clean him up. I just think he's ... COOPER: He's also a guy who, the former president chose to have ... MOORE: Yes. COOPER: ... by his side for twenty something years. MOORE: I mean, that's the - but that's ... COLLINS: I mean, that's the whole - that's actually - I mean, that's the point. When it comes to the optics of how the jury sees this and how they are taking in Michael Cohen, maybe they don't know everything. But I mean, for everything that Michael Cohen has said about Donald Trump, Donald Trump has said about Michael Cohen. They've shown those tweets to the jury as well, where Donald Trump criticized Michael Cohen for doing what Paul Manafort did not. The fact that Paul Manafort went to jail and saying that he would not flip and talking about how Michael Cohen did and saying no one should retain the legal services of Michael Cohen. Well, Donald Trump did retain the legal services of Michael Cohen for 10 years. And we're talking about payments that he made to Michael Cohen at the heart of this. I also think the other thing that Todd Blanche got into, and I'm sure he'll get more into it, speaking of how much he made off of his books and after the post presidency or not being in the White House, it's not clear how the jury will take that. It's not like Trump is a normal defendant. While we've talked about Trump's wealth and how it's overstated, he is still a really wealthy person. And so it's not clear that this jury of regular people is seeing Michael Cohen and Stormy Daniels making money as this great sin, counting against them, given Donald Trump's wealth. COOPER: John, what more did Cohen say on the stand about Trump's involvement with the payments? BERMAN: He said it was pretty direct. And this was in the direct examination in the morning where Susan Hoffinger continued what she did yesterday. We have an exchange here about the payments of Stormy Daniels, which was ground they covered yesterday. Hoffinger says, "Why, in fact, did you pay that money to Stormy Daniels?" Cohen says, "To ensure that the story would not come out, would not affect Mr. Trump's chances of becoming president of the United States." Hoffinger: "If not for the campaign, Mr. Cohen, would you have paid that money to Stormy Daniels?" Cohen says, "No, ma'am." Todd Blanche issues an objection. The judge overrules it, says, "You can answer." Cohen says, "No, ma'am." Then Hoffinger asked, "At whose direction and on whose behalf did you commit that crime?" And then Cohen says, "On behalf of Mr. Trump." I do wonder if that gets to the point you were bringing up, Michael. We'll talk about that in a second. I just want to very quickly say, they also got in the direct examination into the Oval Office visit, which is something Kaitlan's been talking about for some time, where Cohen says, "I was sitting with President Trump and he asked me if I was okay in the Oval Office. He asked me if I needed the money. I said, no, all good. He said, because I can get a check. And I said, no. I said, I'm okay. He said, ummm, all right, just make sure you deal with Allen," as in Allen Weisselberg. And Hoffinger asked, "Did he say anything about what would be forthcoming to you?" Cohen says, "Yes. It would be a check for January and February." And then at that point in time, you had not yet been reimbursed for the payments you had made to Stormy Daniels. Cohen says, "No, ma'am." HONIG: This is a perfect example of what Temidayo and Michael were just talking about. That meeting, the fact that that meeting occurred is corroborated 5,000 different ways. There's emails, there's texts, there's testimony from Madeleine, who is the secretary outside the Oval Office. No question that meeting happened, no question when it happened. But as to what exactly was said, that's really just Michael Cohen's word. And so he is corroborated, but he's not all the way corroborated. The jury - they can't get around the fact that the jury has to put some faith in Michael Cohen's word. TOOBIN: Especially about the purpose of the payments. I mean, and that's ... HONIG: Yes. TOOBIN: ... and that's a very important part of this case, is that did this money - was it a reimbursement? I think there's a lot of proof about that. But also the records, the business records that are allegedly false, they have to trust Cohen, that Cohen - that Trump knew the records were false. That's really on Cohen, and that's a big part of the case. COOPER: Yeah. John Berman, thanks very much. Kaitlan - Elie you just question how the jury will take all this. Coming up, a jury consultant gives his take on Michael Cohen's cross-examination today. We'll be right back. (COMMERCIAL BREAK) [20:33:23] ANDERSON COOPER: I want to discuss more about what the jury saw today. They heard since the beginning of this trial about the negative side of Michael Cohen, the liar, the bully, the jerk, according to one witness. How did the jury react to his cross examination? My next guest says Cohen might have even come across as likable and delivered one line the jury will remember forever by saying, quote, "I was knee deep into the cult of Donald Trump." Joining us now is Renato Stabile, a jury and trial consultant and attorney as well. How do you think Cohen did today? RENATO STABILE, JURY CONSULTANT: I give him an A as a witness, given the baggage that he's coming onto the witness stand with. If you just took that baggage and you gave it to any witness and said, OK, go testify. He did as well as he's going to do. I don't give him an A as a person, I mean, I don't think anybody wishes that he did all of those things or said all those things, but having done that, and now taking the witness stand, he did great. He didn't fight, he took the punches he needed to punch, and I think he came off credible. COOPER: Do you think the defense in their cross-examination, I mean, the way Todd Blanche started it out, do you think it played well with the jury? STABILE: You know, I don't know that I would have started making it about me and now we saw what the judge said at the sidebar. But, you know, it's very hard to sit here and grade another lawyer's paper when you're not in his position. I thought he did a reasonably good job. He made the points he needed to make. But Michael Cohen was absolutely excellent. He was very well prepped. I love the line that it sounds like something I would say, because it really takes the wind out of the cross-examination. He's not arguing with him. He's not saying, well, I don't remember. That makes the lawyer, you know, put it in front of him. Then he says, oh, I do remember. The jury gets annoyed with that. He handled that perfectly. That line, for sure, was scripted by his lawyer. He didn't come up with that, but it was the perfect line. [20:35:03] COOPER: That's a -- what's interesting about that line is, it sounds like something he might say, and it sounds like such a throwaway, casual thing, but the idea that it's been scripted out ahead of time. STABILE: They worked on that line. They worked on that line. COLLINS: Yes, because it's like no responsibility. COOPER: Right, yes. COLLINS: But it's like, well, it sounds like something I would say. COOPER: Right. STABILE: It was the perfect line. COOPER: Yes, and it also blunts, no matter how hard somebody comes at you with that, it sort of just absorbs it and blunts it. STABILE: That's why it's perfect. COLLINS: But you know, at that moment at the beginning, when Todd Blanche did ask those questions, they were stricken from the record, the questions and the answers. But, I mean, the jury still hears that. So like, it's still -- maybe it's not on the record, but like, it's still in their mind that that happened. STABILE: Yes, of course. Anything that gets said in court, even if it gets stricken, even if the judge instructs the jury, you know, disregard that. Of course, if I tell you not to think about pink elephants, that's the only thing that you can think about. So -- HONIG: The problem, though, for Blanche is, the first two questions he asked were both objection sustained. There was the question about, what did you say these mean things about me? And then he started asking Michael Cohen about comments Michael Cohen had made publicly about the jury. Objection sustained. Your credibility as a lawyer matters so much in front of the jury. And if the first thing the jury see -- COLLINS: The jury can't hear the sidebar. HONIG: No, but they see the result. They know the result is objection sustained. You don't want to go 0 for 2 right off the bat in front of the jury. TOOBIN: What about the point that Elie and I were just discussing about, it's one thing to hate Donald Trump. It's another thing to be campaigning for a conviction and a jail sentence when you are testifying in the trial that might lead to a conviction and jail sentence. I mean, isn't that a level of bias that is bigger than even, you know, like worse than you can imagine? I mean -- STABILE: A 100 percent. TOOBIN: Yes. STABILE: Terrible judgment. Terribly out of control. But given that you did those things, he handled it as well as he could have handled it. But you're absolutely right. I mean, what a disaster to be doing things like that. And how out of control is he that his lawyers can't control him. The prosecutor -- nobody can control this guy, but he did well in the witness stand. TOOBIN: But how does he get an A in that case? I mean, because doesn't that just call into question everything he says? COLLINS: Maybe not a curve. STABILE: It does. But the way he answered questions, the way he presented himself, the way he maintained his cool and his calm, the way he didn't fight, the way he didn't try and deflect, that was all absolutely spot on. HONIG: Have you ever seen a witness with that much and that obvious a personal animus towards the defendant? STABILE: I mean, look, the one thing you don't have in this case is that he doesn't have a cooperation agreement. HONIG: Yes. STABILE: So, as you know, somebody with a cooperation agreement arguably has equal, if not more bias, if they're trying to get out of jail. He's not playing any kind of get out of jail free card which when you're crossing a cooperative, that's where you hammer them. You don't want to go to jail. You're -- you will say anything to avoid jail time. They don't have that (INAUDIBLE). HONIG: But Blanche did hit on that because he said the first time you approached the Manhattan D.A., you were three months into your sentence. You had three years. And so he did make the argument that you were trying to maybe work your way out a little bit early. But you're right. I mean, ordinarily, you have someone who's looking at a monster sentence and the cross-examination is, your only way out is through this witness stand and through pleasing these guys, the prosecutors. That dynamic is only very subtly present with Michael Cohen. But on the flip side, you have a guy who I would argue has a greater incentive, which he -- his entire identity. He is consumed by hatred for the defendant. I've never seen that type of personal hatred and personal lusting for the person to go to jail like I've seen in this case. AGANGA-WILLIAMS: But the one thing I will say, though, comparing, I think, you know, look at Michael Cohen as a person. We're thinking about other cooperators and other witnesses. So this jury, they're thinking about our human story. And I do wonder, is there a space here where they're seeing the times where they have been loyal to someone and they've been back stabbed? And seeing Michael Cohen as someone who perhaps he has this vitriol inside of him, but he has a reason for that. And I do wonder, is there connection to be made there -- COOPER: That's interesting. AGANGA-WILLIAMS: -- because that did get drawn out, right. He stood by the former president, the former president, and he's now the one who has paid the consequences. So, yes, it's not good for our jury system, it's not good for system of justice, but it is a human story that I think some people will connect with. STABILE: I agree. He made himself very relatable in that way that he was so loyal to Donald Trump and he was so hurt and, you know, he's now trying to right wrongs that he did. I thought the line cult of Donald Trump was tremendous. That line will be, you know, remembered like forever. It's one of the greatest lines. But he did really hurt the defense here in other ways. I mean, he said he did 10 hours of work in 2017. Now remember, the defense opened that these were legit legal fees. I think we've seen a mountain of evidence that they weren't. How are they getting out of that? You promised things to a jury. They promised it multiple times in their opening. They are going to be eating that on summation unless they call some witness to try and justify these $35,000 a month payments. HONIG: We're going to answer that though. He did say they did get him to say, well, I did work for the family and the guy, I thought there was actually a decent bit of testimony that Todd Blanche elicited. He said Michael Cohen was paid $350,000 a year. Basically every year leading up to 2017 plus a bonus. So the argument is it wouldn't have been that outrageous or that notable to now suddenly be paying him 35,000 bucks a month, which comes out to 420 per year, so -- [20:40:07] COLLINS: But the question is, if what -- if that's what sticks in their mind, that testimony that Blanche elicited or where there was an hour this morning where the prosecution walked Michael Cohen. We saw every single check -- HONIG: Yes. COLLINS: -- of the 11 checks that Donald Trump signed for him. Michael Cohen had to read the invoice that he sent to Allen Weisselberg. He showed the check that Donald Trump signed, Donald Trump Jr., Eric Trump as well. And every time Michael Cohen said, that was a false invoice, it was for no legal services. TOOBIN: And they have that document in Weisselberg's handwriting which explains how they came to the $35,000 a month, which, you know, again, the prosecution's evidence fits together. And what I'm waiting for in the defense is how they're going to attack it in a way other than, you know, Stormy Daniels is terrible, Michael Cohen is terrible. No, what is the alternative explanation for these facts other than what the prosecution has put forth? COOPER: Well, also, I mean, what's interesting is you have Michael Cohen -- you know, tomorrow there's no court, so the jurors have Michael Cohen in their minds going into a day and they don't have testimony. And then there's going to be testimony on Thursday. Michael Cohen will be on the stand. And then Friday, there's no court. So, I mean, Michael Cohen is going to be very present in this juror's mind tomorrow and all through the weekend. STABILE: Yes. So strategically, what the defense wants to do is kind of run out the clock on Thursday. They want to keep Michael Cohen on the witness stand. You might see Todd Blanche slow rolling it just to get there. COOPER: For that reason, because they want -- STABILE: Because then there's going to be some distance. Then there's going to be a three-day weekend because there's no court on Friday. Michael Cohen fades a little bit. And then I don't know what the defense case is going to be. They say they're going to put on an expert witness. I don't know expert as to what? I mean, they've created a situation where they're disputing that these were reimbursements. They're saying they were legit legal fees. That is the factual battleground that the defense has established. So I don't know what kind of expert do they call (ph). COOPER: Did they say they might or did they say they definitely will, do you know? COLLINS: He says that he anticipates -- he -- Todd Blanchett said twice, he anticipates going until the end of day on Thursday. Which means that on Monday, though, Michael Cohen would still technically be on the witness stand if the prosecution wants to do the redirect. The question is, is if they don't feel like Todd Blanche has been all that effective, if the prosecution does that much redirect with Michael Cohen. STABILE: They may or Todd Blanche might, you know, calculate, let me stop it an hour before the end of the day. Let them do -- you know, you want to -- you're going to try and end with Michael Cohen on Thursday if you can. You don't want him back on Monday. But I think that's how it's going to be handled. HONIG: By the way, quick power move that prosecutors do once in a while with a cooperator after a long, aggressive cross. If you feel good about it as a prosecutor that your witness stood up, when the judge goes, OK, Mr. Toobin, redirect, you just stand up and go, no redirect, your honor. It's like, we're good. I don't think they're going to do that here. STABILE: Yes, no, I don't think, but it signals to the jury. HONIG: Yes. STABILE: He didn't hurt us. HONIG: Right. TOOBIN: In a short redirect often accomplishes the same thing if you want to clean that up. But that is definitely a power move. And based on at least the first day, I could anticipate the prosecution doing just that. COOPER: Renato Stabile, fascinating. Thank you. STABILE: Thanks a lot. Thank you. COOPER: Really appreciate it. Coming up, the former president had some political back up today at the courthouse who is, you can see, all seem to share his fashion sense. From vice -- which I'm obsessed with, that everybody has to dress identically too and it's the weirdest thing. From vice presidential hopefuls to the speaker of the House, why they are all made the pilgrimage to get their clothes all in the same colors and get down to the courtroom, next. (COMMERCIAL BREAK) [20:47:39] COOPER: Once again, the former president had a Republican entourage with him in court today, including more vice presidential hopefuls and this time, Speaker of the House, second in line to the presidency, Speaker Johnson used the opportunity to take shots at today's star witness, something the former president is barred from actually, of course, doing. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) REP. MIKE JOHNSON (R), HOUSE SPEAKER: This is a man who is clearly on a mission for personal revenge and who is widely known as a witness who has trouble with the truth. He is someone who has a history of perjury and is well known for it. No one should believe a word he says today. (END VIDEO CLIP) COOPER: Speaker Johnson also professed the innocence of the former president and called the trial a sham. His appearance led former congresswoman, January 6th, committee vice chair Liz Cheney to write this on X. "I'm surprised that Speaker Johnson wants to be in the, 'I cheated on my wife with a porn star' club. I guess he's not that concerned with teaching morality to our young people after all." And right here in New York, a big fundraiser headlined by the former president, co-hosted by the parents of Jared Kushner. Attendees include more contenders for Trump's VP pick, including Senators Marco Rubio and Tim Scott and South Dakota Governor Kristi Noem. Joining us to discuss is CNN's Senior Political Commentator David Axelrod. She did not bring the dog. DAVID AXELROD, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: Yes, lock up your dog. She's in town. COLLINS: The dog's no longer with us. COOPER: Well, yes, I know. AXELROD: What a Bizarro, I mean, this really reflects how strange this campaign is. I mean, it used to be that vice presidential candidates would go, you know, to party dinners and they'd do television interviews and so on to sort of audition for the vice presidency. Now they show up in court in support of their candidate who is on trial for what he's on trial for and they're, you know, basically carrying his words out to the world. But I'm relieved that Speaker Johnson is offended by it. People who don't always tell the truth. COOPER: The Trump campaign released a fundraising video that according to them was shot inside the courthouse today. Larry Trump, Eric Trump appearing in it with Vivek Ramaswamy. Donald Trump himself actually pops up at the end to give a thumbs up. Is that a first, a fundraising appeal from a courthouse? AXELROD: I would think so, but, yes, I don't have anything to compare it to because we've never had a president who's been on trial in the middle of a campaign either. But, listen, it does speak to the place that Donald Trump is in right now in terms of the Republican Party. [20:50:06] He is a force. He -- they think he is doing well in this campaign. These guys want to be vice president. That's why they're turning up. It's a command performance in some ways. And for Speaker Johnson, look, Donald Trump basically allowed him to survive. It -- he went down to Mar-a-Lago. He made his peace with Trump and Trump basically stood down. If he had put his shoulder to the wheel, he could have deposed Johnson when Marjorie Taylor Greene did what Marjorie Taylor Greene did or certainly made it harder for him. So he is paying back a debt and buying an insurance policy on his future tenure as Speaker of the House. COOPER: Jeff, I mean, do you think people like, jurors notice who's in the courtroom behind? TOOBIN: I'm going to speak as a Manhattan resident. I don't think a lot of Manhattan residents know who Mike Johnson is or what he looks like. So I don't think that is -- COLLINS: Well, also, he wasn't actually in the courthouse today. TOOBIN: Oh, he wasn't in the court. COLLINS: I'll note that he just -- COOPER: Right. COLLINS: -- made it sound like he was coming or -- (CROSSTALK) TOOBIN: Or to Vance (ph) or -- COOPER: Right. TOOBIN: -- you know, I -- you know, to be honest, no. I don't think they noticed. Now, you know, I -- this all made me think of, you know, the way the Kardashian name became famous was because Robert Kardashian who was technically a lawyer, but not really a lawyer, was part of O.J. Simpson's entourage during his trial. And that's how, you know, he -- that name became famous. But, here, I think this is much more of an inside political game to gain favor with Donald Trump than it is to affect either the jury or even people in that matter (ph). AXELROD: It's also -- we -- you know, Trump is doing what Trump did before the 2020 election. He is pre-spinning a result and they are abetting that effort in delivering a message that this is a political trial, that there's no foundation for it, that Michael Cohen is a lying reprobate who's bent on revenge. This is all part of what Trump does so well, which is to kind of set the terms of the debate. So if things go badly, he can say, well, we all know what this is about. COOPER: And -- AXELROD: And they're now a party to it. COOPER: Kaitlan, you spoke to Doug Burgum about the trial. He was there. Let's just play that. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) GOV. DOUG BURGUM (R), NORTH DAKOTA: When you've got a judge that donated to Joe Biden, when you've got prosecutors that supported Joe Biden, when you've got the judge's family members that are benefiting financially, as Democrat operatives. And then when you've got as you just said on the lead in this whole trial, you know, rests on the credibility of someone who spent three hours this morning, describing in great detail how we lied to a grand jury, how we lied to a Congress and how we lied in court cases. And so this is a, you know, it's just a tough thing. I mean, I -- prosecution's got a tough job to try to build their case on someone who's a serial perjurer. COLLINS: You know, the one thing that sitting there listening to Michael Cohen testify, which is, of course, who you're referring to, I mean, Donald Trump hired Michael Cohen. So for everything that you just said, I mean, that is the person that Donald Trump chose to be his personal attorney. BURGUM: Well, I think you -- yes, that's true that he did hire him, but I think that you'll win the cross-examination, you're going to come out. You heard a glimpse of it this morning that Michael Cohen leveraged the title that he had. He wasn't even doing work for President Trump. And he was signing up clients left and right at $4 million in revenue leveraged that. (END VIDEO CLIP) TOOBIN: It's actually interesting saying he wasn't even working for Donald Trump. That's part of the prosecution's evidence in the case. I don't think they're going to be calling him Doug Burgum as a witness but, I mean, it just shows that, you know, if you don't know the facts of the case, maybe you shouldn't talk so much. COOPER: You better be careful. They're going to take that red tie back. COLLINS: But also, what's so interesting about this, I mean, is the -- this is also clearly a tryout for people who either want to be vice president, people like Doug Burgum, or want to be in the cabinet, or are hoping Donald Trump will help them with their political fortunes. It wasn't that long ago when Doug Burgum was challenging Donald Trump for the Republican nomination. He was asked if he'd ever do business with Donald Trump, but he said no, and he said that the reason that was is because he just believes it's important that you're judged by the company you keep. Now that he is seeking to be Donald Trump's vice president, he is obviously out there arguing on his behalf. The other thing that I've also found interesting that we've heard from Doug Burgum and JD Vance who seem to be out VPing each other here, is they both criticize the judge's daughter. That is exactly what Donald Trump was doing when they expanded the gag order to prevent him from doing it. I asked Doug Burgum if Donald Trump instructed him to do so, which would violate the gag order, he said, no, that he was just here as a volunteer. COOPER: I'm sorry to keep harping on this, but we just showed another photo, a little wider shot (ph) of the one we just showed before. A fourth guy popped up in a red tie. I mean -- [20:55:05] COLLINS: That's Cory Mills of Florida, Byron Donalds, Vivek Ramaswamy, obviously, and Doug Burgum. COOPER: I think they're spreading. AXELROD: There are notes written on the back of those ties. COOPER: Yes. HONIG: Can I ask a different question? COOPER: Yes, please. HONIG: You're -- you've obviously have a lot of experience advising Democratic candidates for president. If you were advising the Democratic nominee right now, would you tell him to go harder on Donald Trump's pending legal troubles? Put aside this hush money case, I know it has limited appeal, but how about the January 6th indictment, the classified documents? Do you think Joe Biden should be doing more and more aggressively on that? AXELROD: Look, I think that when you look at the people that he needs to get, I think the people who feel strongly about that issue, at least at this juncture, he's getting those people. He may be able to persuade some at the end on this. The people he really to get in the people who are hanging back and aren't as engaged, they're very much motivated by things like economic issues. And I think he has to draw a sharp contrast on some of those issues. In some ways, there's a lot of knowledge about this. COLLINS: Well, on that point, the other thing that Doug Burgum did say that I think does resonate with voters when we look at the latest polls from the New York Times and Siena is he said Americans care more about their grocery bills than what's happening in that courtroom behind us. AXELROD: Yes. COLLINS: And, I mean, that is a point that you don't hear from Donald Trump often when he comes and speaks to the cameras, but it is something that you have heard from a lot of these Republicans. AXELROD: Oh yes, listen, I've said from the beginning, if you're sitting around the kitchen -- and I feel strongly about these democracy issues, I think they're very, very important, but if you're sitting around the kitchen table talking about the Democracy in the future of democracy, probably because you don't have to worry about the cost of the food on your table. If you have to worry about that, it's more likely the thing on your mind. And I think there I've been -- you know, I've said before, I think the president needs to lean into those issues a lot more. He seems more intent on defending his economic performance and getting credit for the good work that he has done in many ways and not really advocating for people in a tough economy because of the inflation. COOPER: David Axelrod, good to have you. Thank you. Next, more on the cross-examination of Michael Cohen and Trump's demeanor during it all. We'll be joined by someone else who was inside the courtroom. We'll be right back. (COMMERCIAL BREAK) The Source with Kaitlan Collins Aired May 14, 2024 - 21:00 ET THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED. (COMMERCIAL BREAK) [21:01:20] ANDERSON COOPER, CNN HOST: And it is just past 9 PM, hours after an attorney for the former President did what he likely wishes he could, but cannot, because of a gag order. Launch into a verbal assault on Michael Cohen, his motives and combustible past. The language was coarse, from the start, prompting an immediate sidebar with the judge. Moments later, the defense returned to the colorful language, Cohen has used on social media, to describe his one-time boss, painting an image of him as a jilted former employee, with dollar signs in his eyes. Also, for the second day this week, a chorus of the former President's allies, some of whom are VP contenders, showed up, attacking the trial and Cohen in ways, once again, the former President cannot. Joining our team here tonight is Corinne Ramey, a reporter for The Wall Street Journal, has been following the trial from inside the courtroom. What stood out to you today? CORINNE RAMEY, REPORTER, THE WALL STREET JOURNAL: I think that moment you just described, with Todd Blanche sort of coming, straight out of the gate, super-aggressive at the beginning of cross, very much stood out to me, especially because of I think it was-- COOPER: Did it work? RAMEY: Well, if you're the judge, the answer is no. Merchan shut it down quickly. COOPER: Yes. RAMEY: And as we saw in the transcript, the sidebar, Merchan said, don't make this about you. And so, for that perspective, no. But for the jury, I mean, I guess it did show that he was aggressive, and his intention was to go after Cohen, even if ultimately, the rest of the cross or much of the rest of the cross was a little more toned down. COOPER: Do you have a sense of what the reaction in the courtroom was? Or what the -- how the jurors seemed to interpret it? RAMEY: I mean, throughout, the jurors were quite engaged. COOPER: Yes. RAMEY: They weren't sort of captivated the way that I think they were sometimes, during the Stormy Daniels testimony. But they were engaged. They were taking notes. They seemed to be taking it seriously. At times, I had a pretty good seat of like being able to see the jury today. And Blanche would be asking about some of Cohen's social media habits. And he'd be talking about a Cheeto-crusted cartoon villain, or some such thing. And the jurors are like, studiously writing notes. COOPER: Yes. RAMEY: And I'm wondering like, did they just write down-- COOPER: Cheeto-crusted cartoon villain, yes. RAMEY: --Cheeto-crusted cartoon villain? COOPER: They -- very possible they did. RAMEY: Yes, it's very possible. COOPER: You said that -- you pointed out that Cohen's testimony is essential to prosecutors, because he's the only witness, who's tied the cover-up of hush money payment directly, to Trump. Do you think he was effective in doing so? And do you think in his testimony? RAMEY: Well, I think that's the big question here is whether, you know, there are these moments that Cohen talks about that he is the only one who can tell that story. Like, prosecutors did the absolute best they could, in having the phone records, having the pictures. This morning, when he was talking about the Oval Office meeting, the prosecutors would flash things on the screen. There was a photo of Cohen, at a podium, at a lectern, in the White House. There was a calendar entry, showing that he had recorded that he went to the White House on that certain day. So, I imagine there's no doubt in jurors' minds that Cohen was in the White House on that certain day. COOPER: Yes. RAMEY: But whether, in that meeting, Trump had the conversation that Cohen recalls having? I think that's something that jurors are going to be deciding over-- KAITLAN COLLINS, CNN HOST: And-- RAMEY: --sort of the next week of the trial. COLLINS: And for as much as, as important as it is for Michael Cohen, for the prosecution, making their argument, he's also the biggest witness for the defense, in making their counterargument, and saying that Donald Trump wasn't responsible for this. And so, there is so much riding on how Todd Blanche does handle that when Michael Cohen is back on the stand, on Thursday. And what we heard from this afternoon is that Trump was initially pleased with how -- I mean, this is the only thing Todd Blanche has really done, in this case. RAMEY: Right. COLLINS: He hasn't really cross-examined anyone else at length, or taken much of a presence. He's been there every day. But this is his entire job, is to cross-examine Michael Cohen, and to do so successfully. [21:05:00] Trump was initially happy with how Todd Blanche actually did today. Of course, Trump judges everything that he really sees in his evaluation, based on the perception and the coverage of it. So, we'll see if that changes over the next days. ELIE HONIG, CNN SENIOR LEGAL ANALYST: Can I follow-- COOPER: So, just to that point, Elie, how did you think Todd Blanche did today? HONIG: Well, I wasn't impressed with him. With just based on the transcript and based on our feed, we had at CNN, I thought he was a little bit all over the map. And Corinne, I'm interested in what you thought. Because we've been focused very much on what was Michael Cohen's demeanor? How did he play in the courtroom? What was Blanche like? Because I know him. I go back to the Southern District of New York with him. He was a pretty mild personality. Like all of us, he can get more jacked-up for the courtroom. What was he like? RAMEY: After that sort of initial aggressive questioning? HONIG: Yes. RAMEY: It was much more mild. HONIG: Yes. RAMEY: I mean, it wasn't timid. It wasn't sort of -- he wasn't afraid of Cohen. But it was calm. It was, he was clearly prepared. He'd clearly been practicing for this moment. But he wasn't attacking Cohen. HONIG: That's interesting. COOPER: For the most part. HONIG: Yes. JEFFREY TOOBIN, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: But you've seen a lot of the trial up close. RAMEY: Yes. TOOBIN: Do you feel that there is an explanation for this $420,000 other than what the prosecution has said that money is for? I mean, what's the defense argument for what this $420,000 is for? Just because Donald Trump felt like giving it to Michael Cohen? RAMEY: I mean, I think prosecutors were trying to squash a few possible defense arguments today. In their questioning, they talked about the legal work that Cohen had done, or even consulting work, sort of post Trump's election. And it was minimal, like they were trying to make to say, defense, if you're going to argue that this is what Cohen's getting paid for, it will not cut it. And I think they made that case. But I think the question is not whether sort of what Cohen was getting paid, for was this illegal retainer? It really is about whether Trump himself directed these false business records that he is charged with. And that is something that Cohen is the one who can speak to that. COOPER: And Michael, you don't think -- I mean, to me, neither thinks they've-- MICHAEL MOORE, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: Yes. COOPER: --the prosecution has proved their case. You don't think that? MOORE: I don't think they have yet. I mean, I think they're trying to with Cohen. I think that's why Weisselberg is such a big deal, and his absence from the trial is such a big deal. I think they've gotten to the part of, yes there are some false business records. But this next step of did they falsify the record with the intent of committing another crime? I think it's that's where you put Trump in the room, where you need somebody to back up-- TOOBIN: Well and-- MOORE: --to back up what Cohen said. TOOBIN: And as Corinne said, I mean, I think the main weakness, in the government's case, is the connection of Donald Trump, not to the payments, but to the creation of the false business records. I mean, we heard about how those records were did. COOPER: Would knowledge -- if he had knowledge that it was being falsely done? TOOBIN: Knowledge is not enough. He has to have caused it. Now, he doesn't have to have done it himself. He doesn't have to have used the dropdown menu. He doesn't have to have put the words, retainer, on the -- on the check stub. But he has to have engaged in behavior that led the people, who did actually do the writing, to have done that. COOPER: But can you make the argument that his behavior if he, slept with Stormy Daniels, and he wanted to cover it up, and he paid this hush money that that caused the behavior? TOOBIN: Well, I think it's got to be a little more direct than that. I mean. COOPER: Does it have to be him saying file this-- TOOBIN: No, it doesn't have to be an explicit instruction. But it does have to be behavior that led to this specific act of creating the false business record. And that is, to me, still the weakest part of the government's case. Everything else, I think, is pretty much done. COLLINS: Because the closest they've gotten to it is Michael Cohen, saying that Donald Trump did approve it, verbally, when Allen Weisselberg showed it to him. That is really. And it's not clear they're going to get much closer to that. So, that's the question of truly it is up to the jury, and if they view that as legitimate enough, and far enough. TOOBIN: Yes. MOORE: The word -- the language in an indictment is crucial. And remember, you've got two lawyers on this jury, which is unusual. COLLINS: Yes. MOORE: So, they may really look at the technical aspects of it. And what it says is that the writing, the business record is done with the intent to defraud, and the intent to commit another crime, and aid in covering it up. So, they've got all of these things, they've got approved. And I'm saying, I don't think they've gotten all the way across to finish line with that -- with it. TEMIDAYO AGANGA-WILLIAMS, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: But I think, if I'm not mistaken, it may say and in the indictment. But when the judge is going to instruct the jury, on the law? MOORE: Yes. AGANGA-WILLIAMS: And it's really going to be an, or practically. So, it's going to be enough for them to prove that it was done with the intention of concealing another crime. And I think all of this, you know, one thing they'll tell a jury is that there's direct evidence and there's circumstantial evidence, but both are evidence. So, we don't need necessarily that smoking-gun moment, where someone comes in, and here's the video, or something else. You could have circumstantial evidence. [21:10:00] And I think what the strength of the prosecution's case here is what we've been talking about, is going to be these competing narratives. And we have a lot of evidence here. And I think the idea that the prosecution -- that the jury is going to say, yes, he did this for the campaign, and yes, he -- on tape with Michael Cohen. And yes, David Pecker also met with him. And yes, he signed all these checks, did all that stuff. But the one thing he didn't know about was about the falsification of these documents? I don't think it really makes rational sense. I think if you're a defense lawyer, your case, your counter-narrative has to make rational sense. I think here, it's not going to be enough to have these little nicks of credibility. It's not going to be enough to say, you really have a vendetta against this guy. Because for everything they've shown Michael Cohen, or Stormy Daniels say, about Donald Trump, they have another tweet, like you said, Kaitlan, they have annexed some more vitriol that's coming the other way. So really, what we're looking at is a lot of folks from the defense table to the cooperators, who are all kind of dirty. And I think, but those documents are where I think the prosecution tips them over, to having a pretty persuasive case. RAMEY: I mean, I think-- COOPER: Corinne? RAMEY: Oh, sorry. COOPER: No, go ahead. RAMEY: I think the other thing the prosecution does is we have heard a lot, the past couple days, about Trump and micromanaging, like they have really made a case that Trump was -- not only was Trump a micromanager, but that Cohen wanted that, and really wanted Trump's approval, wanted Trump's attention and-- COOPER: And also seemed to check in with Trump at every step of the way on various. RAMEY: At every step of the way that Cohen needed Trump's approval, not just because Trump wanted it, because Cohen needed it. COOPER: Let me ask you. The former President has had a growing entourage, and not family members, but of various characters-- RAMEY: Yes. COOPER: --who are auditioning for Vice President and other things. The group that was there today, what kind of an impact did that have in the -- I mean, were they noticeable in the courtroom? Did they -- does it change the dynamic in any way in the courtroom? RAMEY: They were noticeable. The sort of courtroom benches behind Trump have at times been half-empty. COOPER: Right. RAMEY: It was this-- COOPER: When I was there, like Boris Epshteyn was just there, checking his phone throughout it. RAMEY: Yes. Sometimes, it's like that. And so, there's this packed courtroom of reporters, and like five people from the public in the back, and then these empty pews near where Trump is sitting, or behind where Trump is sitting. But the past couple days, it's been packed that he has had all these supporters. And it's quite noticeable. And at one point today, some of these Republican elected officials, like in the middle of Cohen's testimony, just walked in. And it was so odd because, there's like a lot of rules in the courtroom, that we can't just, say, go to the bathroom, or have a snack, or like do whatever you want, or leave. COLLINS: Yes. RAMEY: It's-- COLLINS: You can't even eat in that courtroom. And it was in a moment when Michael Cohen was answering a question from the prosecution. And the morning break had ended. They had all -- all of Trump's allies had gone outside to do a press conference. Because you could -- we could still have our computers. You could see online, they were outside speaking publicly. And only a few people came back in after the break. We assumed they had just left because the bench was empty behind Donald Trump. And then, while Michael Cohen is in the middle of a sentence, in walks Byron Donalds, Vivek Ramaswamy, Governor Burgum, and another campaign aide, I believe it was at least four people, maybe five. And they don't just slip into the back, and go to the back row. They walk all the way up to the front and they get in the second row. It wasn't clear from -- I was on the left side. So, it wasn't clear how the jury, if they looked, if it distracted them, if it distracted Michael Cohen. But there was a moment, where I saw the judge, Justice Merchan, I've been watching him, throughout the case, he was essentially glaring at them. He looked noticeably annoyed, at the fact that they just walked in, in the middle. You just don't see that in that courtroom. RAMEY: No. HONIG: Well-- RAMEY: It was sort of the least -- I mean, it's a very ordered proceeding. And that was sort of the least order that I think I've seen in the past couple weeks, in that courtroom. COLLINS: We can't even use our binoculars, at certain points-- RAMEY: I know, yes. HONIG: --if they're in a sidebar. I mean, it's that strict. RAMEY: Yes. COLLINS: And there's multiple court officers, walking around, telling you, you can't be talking, you can't be on your phone, if you're a reporter, or a member of the public. And it was just -- it was -- it was a kind of jarring. COOPER: I love that you have binoculars. COLLINS: I'm going to keep them. HONIG: Are they big? COLLINS: I'm going to start birding. HONIG: Like field binoculars, or like-- (CROSSTALK) COOPER: Or was it actually like those giant-- (CROSSTALK) COLLINS: They're kids' binoculars. COOPER: They're actually more like Special Forces things that like just take cam, that's the courtroom artists have them. Corinne Ramey, do you wear glasses, Corinne? Do you wear the binoculars? RAMEY: I don't have binoculars. COOPER: OK. COLLINS: You can have mine. RAMEY: And I was starting to think that I needed some. And now, they've been cracking down, so. COOPER: It's the peer pressure to get binoculars. RAMEY: Yes. COOPER: Corinne Ramey, it's great to have you. Thank you so much. RAMEY: Thanks for having me. COOPER: Everyone's going to stay here. We may not have video of Michael Cohen's back-and-forth with the defense. But there is definitely heat that emanates off the transcripts. John Berman joins us with that. Also ahead, what was said in court today about what the former President would be testifying in this case. (COMMERCIAL BREAK) [21:19:04] COOPER: If one thing comes through loud and clear, in the transcripts, from today's trial, and it's something Elie Honig mentioned earlier, there's no love lost between Michael Cohen and the former President, as if we had any doubt about that. At one point, the prosecution had Cohen reading tweets from the president, in the months after the FBI raided Cohen's office in 2018. Trump had praised his former campaign manager, Paul Manafort and, one, for refusing to quote, break. Cohen said he understood he was being told not to cooperate. John Berman joins us with more of the transcripts. I know you've been going through them. What else have you found? JOHN BERMAN, CNN ANCHOR: So, there was one exchange that caught my eye that gets to two points here that you've all been talking about. Number one, how little Michael Cohen currently likes Donald Trump, and how much he wants to see him convicted. And two, how Michael Cohen didn't directly answer a lot of the questions, at least at first that Todd Blanche posed to him. So Blanche asks him, "You've also talked extensively, on Mea Culpa," his podcast, "your desire to see that President Trump get convicted in this case; correct?" Cohen says "Sounds like something I would say." Blanche says, "Well, sir, I'm not asking you if it sounds to like something you would say, I'm saying, did you -- have you regularly commented on your Podcasts that you wanted President Trump to be convicted in this case?" [21:20:00] Cohen then says, "Yes, probably." And then Blanche says, "Do you have any doubt?" Cohen says, "No." Then Blanche says, "So why did you answer "Yes, probably""? Cohen says, "Because I don't specifically know if I used those words, but, yes, I would like to see that." Blanche says, "And so, yes, you want to see President Trump get convicted from this case; correct?" Cohen says, "I would like to see accountability. That's not -- it's not for me, it's for the jury and this Court." Blanche says, "I didn't ask what you wanted to see or not see about accountability, I said do you want to see President Trump convicted in this case?" Cohen says, "That's what we just said. You are asking me if I want to see--" Blanche says, "I'm just asking you to say yes or no, do you want President Trump to get convicted in this case?" Michael Cohen ultimately says, "Sure." HONIG: This is what we call pulling teeth. I know it can be -- it seemed like Cohen had a couple witty rejoinders there. But I don't think witty rejoinders play well, with juries. I would have -- if I was on the prosecution side, I would have much preferred Michael Cohen. When the question was, you've said on your podcast that you want Donald Trump convicted? Yes, I have. You hope that he is held accountable? Yes, I do. You've lied? Yes, I did. When he gets into all this yes, probably, how could it be yes, probably? He says it every single day of his life. So, it makes Cohen look like someone, who's maybe willing to just shade the truth a little bit. And by the way, ultimately, the defense's pitch to the jury is not that you have to believe that Michael Cohen is a fantasist, to make some things out of whole cloth. If you believe Michael Cohen just tweaks the truth a little, here and there, throws a little yes, probably when the answer should be yes? The evidence in this case, as we were just talking about is close enough that that can be enough. If you don't believe Michael Cohen a 100 percent, you can throw this out. So, I don't like those responses from Cohen. COOPER: It's interesting that is -- I don't know if there's an argument that the prosecutors would make. But maybe it's too strange. But if Cohen really wanted to lie and convict Trump, he could have said in this meeting with Allen Weisselberg and Trump that Trump definitively said, yes, file it as a legal expense. TOOBIN: Absolutely. That's a very -- that's a powerful argument. There are several meetings, where he doesn't say that Trump said the most incriminating thing. COOPER: Right. TOOBIN: The Oval Office meeting, he doesn't say that Trump came out and said, make sure the documents, or the business records are false. I mean, if this -- the argument, this is something prosecutors do all the time is they say, if he was cooking up a story, he'd cook up a better story. Now, it's not a perfect argument, because you actually want a better story. But that does, I think, help Cohen's credibility, the fact that some of these exchanges are suggestive of Trump's guilt, but not conclusive proof. MOORE: Yes. And I think it also kind of lends to the arguments the defense might make of look, jury, the prosecutors asked him to -- that they wish they could have made him a better liar, and that's not -- that's not where you want to walk into it. So, I mean, I agree with you, on the sort of the back-and-forth that it's gameplay. And I think sometimes, with a witness, you have to use a cattle prod, a little bit, and say, look, you're not the smartest person in the room. You're going to answer my questions. We can start this out. We're going to have a couple of days at this. And so, I'm going to make you answer my question. That's what I feel like he was doing. At the same time, he's got to walk a line, of not creating sympathy, and look like he's going too hard on the witness, because that's a dangerous place to be. So, he's got to basically let the jury say, look, this guy thinks he's smarter than me. I've got to kind of rein him in some, and then get his questions again. HONIG: Well I thought that was-- COLLINS: And Michael Cohen was so comfortable, acknowledging his lies that he's told before, when the prosecution was questioning him. Obviously, he knew generally, where they were going, and what they were going to ask because they'd asked it to him before. They weren't asking questions they didn't know the answer to. But he was willing to say, you know, they'd put up a statement, and he'd say, yes, that was a lie. They'd ask him about something that he said publicly. He would say, yes, that was a lie, what I told Wolf Blitzer in that interview. When it was Todd Blanche, he seemed to be cagier. MOORE: Right. COLLINS: And in those moments, not willing to acknowledge it, because he seemed to be fearful. I mean, he's an attorney. He was, before he was disbarred. Fearful that Todd Blanche was going to try to get him in a trap. And that seemed to change the longer he was on the stand. But at the beginning, I mean, he wouldn't even acknowledge a lie was a lie, at first. He was saying it was an inaccuracy of what he told Special Counsel Robert Mueller. Obviously, it was a lie. It was deceptive. And then, he later did acknowledge it was a lie. MOORE: Right. AGANGA-WILLIAMS: I will-- TOOBIN: He got better. AGANGA-WILLIAMS: But I will -- I will say, though. MOORE: Yes. AGANGA-WILLIAMS: For the Michael Cohen that we've all seen on television, and the Michael Coleman, we've heard so much, the Michael Cohen that showed up today, did seem like a distinctly different person than we all expected. COOPER: Yes. AGANGA-WILLIAMS: So, I think the discussion we had earlier is important, putting a witness in context. And yes, he's not a perfect witness. But I think we all guessed a few weeks out what we'll be talking about the first day after cross-examination of Michael Cohen. I don't think we would be parsing out necessarily, word by word, his responses, in the same way. I think we would have thought a cross-examination would have torn him to pieces that would have shown-- COOPER: Yes. [21:25:00] AGANGA-WILLIAMS: --this guy can't be trusted. And now, here we are, saying like well perhaps he should have just said yes faster. COOPER: Yes. AGANGA-WILLIAMS: So, I do think if I'm the prosecution, that's making me feel pretty good tonight. COOPER: And John, you have another part of the transcript. BERMAN: Well, look, money was a big part of this. And there was the whole exchange about merch that Cohen was selling on his podcast, but also how well Michael Cohen has done on the books that he's written, two of them about Donald Trump, at least tangentially if not directly. Blanche asks him, "How much money have you made from Revenge?" one of the books that Michael Cohen has written. "I don't know exactly, but I would say around $400,000." "And knowing that in the first two months or so Disloyal," that's the other book "made around 2 million, combining the two books, how much more did Disloyal make after the 2 million that it made in the first couple months?" Cohen answers, "Maybe another million." So Blanche asks "You made -- I am not expecting you to be exact -- you made about 3.4 million dollars from those two books; is that fair?" Cohen says "Over the four-year period?" Blanche says, "Yes." Cohen says "It is, yes, sir." So $3.4 million, that's a lot of money for a book. HONIG: Bravo -- bravo to Michael Cohen. I'm doing something wrong with my books. That-- COLLINS: Well you should go work for Donald Trump. HONIG: Yes, I guess, I do. COLLINS: And then end up in prison-- HONIG: I guess-- COLLINS: --for tax evasion and lying to Congress and-- (CROSSTALK) HONIG: Yes, I guess, I guess, all in all, it's maybe not worth it. COLLINS: Lying to all three branches of government, yes. HONIG: Right. But-- COLLINS: That's what you should try. HONIG: The financial point, I think, came through pretty strongly, which is this is Michael Cohen's livelihood. This is what he does. He profits directly off this. And I think there's a fair argument. He has a direct financial stake in the verdict. Because what happens? If it's a guilty verdict? Michael Cohen will do a tour, he'll probably have a heavier market for his book. If it's a hung jury or not guilty? Watch how quickly the bottom falls out of them, Michael Cohen trashing Donald Trump market. So he's got -- he's got -- it goes to his bias and his credibility. BERMAN: It's still a lot of money too. For a book, it's a lot of money. COOPER: Michael, do you think-- COLLINS: Yes, right. COOPER: Do you think the jury is going to register that? I mean, that's the-- BERMAN: He looked around to every reporter in the room, who had written a book. COOPER: Right. BERMAN: And then he noticed all of them going like, what? COOPER: I mean, how do you think that plays with a jury? MOORE: I mean, I think they absolutely look at that. It's just another reason that cast some pall of question over his testimony and his statement. COOPER: Yes. MOORE: I mean, does he have another reason, and another motive, to say something different? And he does seem to be -- I mean, I called him a grifter, I mean, earlier. But I mean, he does seem to be profiteering off of this whole feud. And so now, we know he's profiteered off the -- off writing the books. And I just don't -- I mean, I think the jury, they're in there because they don't have these sort of preconceived notions, at least we hope. That's why they were selected to be on this jury, you know, that they don't have preconceived notions about people. So, when they hear this, they're listening to somebody. So yes, I had all these problems. I did all this. And I've made $3.2 million, off saying these nasty things about the -- about the defendant? And then, does that call his credibility, and his testimony, to question? I think it does. COLLINS: One other thing that Todd Blanche asked Michael Cohen about, that I was interested in, was he asked about all of his meetings with the D.A. office, the D.A.'s office, generally, even before, Alvin Bragg was the District Attorney, here in Manhattan. And he also asked him, have you ever met directly with Alvin Bragg? And Michael Cohen said, no, I've actually never met him, which I was told, isn't unfamiliar. Alvin Bragg doesn't typically meet with witnesses. He'd only meet with victims. But I don't know where Todd Blanche was going with that line of questioning had he said, yes. HONIG: Yes. I would keep Alvin Bragg separated from any witness, especially Michael Cohen, like physical force if necessary. I think the gist -- and you're right. That part of the cross-exam sort of fell flat for me. I think he was just trying to say you're so eager to please the D.A., you were begging them to come in. You've been trying to cooperate with them, for months and months. You've been hoping to get him indicted, for a long time, which culminates and now you're hoping he gets in prison. I think it just goes more to the vendetta theory. But I agree it fell flat in the way it came through to me. AGANGA-WILLIAMS: And I do wonder whether it's guided by the client, right? I mean, so much of Donald Trump's framing of this case has been the judge, the D.A., right? It's the folks at the top that are leading the charge. And I do wonder at times whether some of that hasn't affected how Blanche is thinking about his cross-examination, because that's where I thought he was going. It's this idea that Alvin Bragg is directly involved, you really are meeting up the folks, at the top of the chain here. And I think it completely fell flat. HONIG: Yes. COOPER: John Berman, thanks so much. Appreciate it. Coming up next, perspective from a retired judge, on today's cross- examination of Michael Cohen. Also, and Judge Merchan's reining in some of those questions. (COMMERCIAL BREAK) [21:33:51] COOPER: While the Trump trial didn't go off the rails today, with the Trump defense getting its first crack at star witness, Michael Cohen. But it easily could have, if not for some immediate action by Judge Merchan. We told you earlier, he called Trump's lawyer, Todd Blanche to the bench, only four questions in, to rein in the line of questioning, after it started off tensely with an expletive. Joining us now with more on that balancing act, to keep things in line, someone who's known Judge Merchan, for more than 15 years, former New York Judge Jill Konviser. So, what do you make of what happened there, with the first cross- examination question leading to an objection and a sidebar? JILL KONVISER, FORMER NY STATE SUPREME COURT JUSTICE: Well, cross- examination is the beating heart of the adversarial process. So, as a judge, you're going to take a step back, and let the lawyers do what they do. If they ask an absolutely irrelevant question, or something that is just beyond the pale, it's your responsibility to stop it, whether it's question one, question four, or question 400. And that is precisely what Judge Merchan did. So, when a lawyer says to a witness, on the stand, you said unkind things about me? There's no relevance to that. The flip side of that is with respect to any witness, who has a bias, toward the defendant in the case. That is fair game. Bias is never collateral. You can always ask those questions. But quite frankly, who cares what he thinks about the lawyer? [21:35:00] COOPER: But if that's how the lawyer wants to start off, like what's the harm in starting off that way, to the defendant -- I mean why would the judge intervene? KONVISER: It-- COOPER: The judge can just stay. KONVISER: Because it's irrelevant, it doesn't matter. It's not something the jury could consider. COOPER: Yes. KONVISER: So, if they can't consider it, he shouldn't be able to ask the question. It was a bomb-throw, and something along those lines, a fire-throw, I don't know what you call it, but it was just something that he wanted-- COOPER: Molotov cocktail. KONVISER: There you go. Thank you. Molotov cocktail. He wanted to throw it, and he knew he was going to get that sustained objection, 100 percent. COOPER: Oh, really? KONVISER: 100 percent. HONIG: What did you think of the second question? The second question was Todd Blanche was trying to go to the fact that Michael Cohen recently had said -- it's crazy statements, Michael Cohen said. He said, the media's going to do facial recognition on the jury, and track you down, and camp out on your lawns. Blanche started to go down that line. There was another objection. And the judge upheld that. Would you have upheld -- would you have sustained that objection? KONVISER: Probably. I don't know what it does, other than to put your jury on edge-- HONIG: Yes. KONVISER: --which is the last thing you want as a judge. You're trying to keep them as a cohesive unit, for as long as you can. It doesn't -- it doesn't get -- it doesn't prove anything in this case ever. HONIG: How about if the -- how about if the defense argument is just he's unhinged? He says wild, ridiculous, irresponsible things. Is that a fair line of cross? KONVISER: Then it could be, if he makes that argument. I would probably choose a different question to go -- to figure out whether or not we're going down an unhinged path, and then try again. You see, Judge, you see what I'm saying? And I want to now ask that question. Then, maybe. COLLINS: Judge, what do you make of Trump's allies that we saw inside the White House, today? Obviously, he's allowed -- or inside the courthouse. He's allowed to bring whoever he would like with him. But J.D. Vance and Doug Burgum, both in moments outside the courthouse, this week, attacked the judge, but also his daughter, which is precisely what led the judge to expand the gag order here. I imagine it's obviously difficult. I mean, they both said that they've made those statements that they were here on their own. I imagine it's difficult for the judge to prove, in the gag order, that Trump had instructed them to make those statements, which it prevents him from doing. KONVISER: Well, first of all, it is a public courtroom, so they can come and they can talk and they do have First Amendment rights, which of course we've said on this show many times, First Amendment rights are fundamental, but they're not absolute. But certainly they can say what they want. But if you look back at the -- at the gag order, Judge Merchan upheld, when Donald Trump posted other things, people -- other comments from other people, someone from Fox News, named Jesse I think, they put on. And the judge said, you know what, that is a violation of the gag order because you are accepting it, you are putting it out there, you're giving it your imprimatur. And that's going to be a violation of the gag order. So, I think is a similar analysis here, because, look, all of a sudden, everyone didn't just descend on the courthouse. There's some conversations. I pretty much guarantee Trump didn't call up, and say come on down, and say these things. But someone probably did. So, is it a violation of the gag order? Only if the People can prove, and it's their burden, that Trump had something to do with it. But it is pretty curious and troubling, that everything these upstanding statesmen said was precisely what the defendant has tried to get out, and is unable to get out because of the gag order. TOOBIN: Judge, let me ask you a question about the jury. We're now a month into this trial. And there hasn't been a single alternate brought in. And all 12 are still intact. That strikes me, in my New York experience, as pretty unusual in a trial of this length. And does that tell you anything about the jury in this case? KONVISER: Well, does it tell me anything? If I was able to tell what jurors were thinking or doing? I would -- I'd be a rich woman, I guess. So, you never really know. But I agree with you completely. It is unusual. It's been my experience that in every criminal case, whether it's a misdemeanor that's being tried, a homicide, or this very significant press-worthy case, with a former President of the United States? There are always issues, whether it's with the jury, whether it's with a gag order, whether it's with people in the audience, whether it's gang- affiliated, there's always something. But it is incredibly surprising that every juror is still involved. No one's late, no one had an emergency. No one has a root canal. It's -- I agree with you, one month into it, it's surprising. What does it tell me? It tells me either they're wonderfully upstanding, civic-minded people, or it's just completely unusual and coincidental. Or they really want to be there, or any version of all of those things. HONIG: That's what it tells me. Nobody wants out. Because if you want out, you can get out on this. I mean, if a juror came in one day, and said, I went into my social media feed and I saw something I probably wasn't supposed to see, and it's tainted my view of the case. I mean, anyone could have asked out and probably gotten out of this case. KONVISER: Yes. HONIG: And I've done cases less high profile than this. We've gone three, four alternates team. TOOBIN: Oh, sure. KONVISER: Yes. [21:40:00] HONIG: And here we are, not a single one. So, I think it's a good indicator just that the jury is focused and doing its job. TOOBIN: Yes. And well -- and here's the hypothesis. I would imagine a jury, this committed, to doing their job, doesn't want to hang, doesn't want to come back and say, well, we just couldn't do our job. I would think that this is a jury that's going to try hard, to reach a verdict, in this case. Is that a meet -- is that a possible theory? KONVISER: It's possible. I would like to think that too. But you could have two camps that are entrenched. TOOBIN: Right. KONVISER: And they're not speaking about the case. They are told at the beginning, in the middle, and there'll be told again, you may not discuss this case. So they're talking about lunch, or they're talking about the weather, or they're talking about what their co-op board is doing? I don't know. But they're not talking about the case. So, you don't really know where anyone is. And we won't unless and until they go back there, they've been charged, they've heard all the arguments, and they start their deliberations. And then, we'll know. COOPER: Overall, are you surprised at all by the pace of things, by how this entire case has been handled? KONVISER: I am. I am surprised how smoothly it's gone. And quite frankly, the only thing that's gone off the rails is the defendant, who has, you know, goes before the microphone, says whatever he wants, talks about his constitutional rights being violated when he's wrong. He's wrong every time he says it. And even today, the Appellate Division on an Article 78 Mandamus application found that Judge Merchan did the right thing, in terms of the gag order that it was narrowly-tailored, the order was justified, and he used the least restrictive means. So, they out-and-out dismissed his claims, right there. COOPER: Judge Konviser, thank you so much. It's always great to have you. KONVISER: You're welcome. COOPER: Ahead, how the Trump defense responded today, when the judge asked whether Donald Trump himself will be testifying. (COMMERCIAL BREAK) [21:46:26] COOPER: The prosecution says Michael Cohen will be its final witness, prompting this question from Judge Merchan, today, to Team Trump. "Do you have any indication whether your client is going to testify?" Donald Trump's lawyer, Todd Blanche, said no. Merchan follows up with "No determination yet?" And heard another, no. Not surprising since Trump's really been all over the map. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) DONALD TRUMP (R), FORMER U.S. PRESIDENT AND 2024 PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: I would have no problem testifying. I didn't do anything wrong. And I'm testifying. I tell the truth. I mean, all I can do is tell the truth. And the truth is that there's no case. They have no case. Well, I would if it's necessary. Well, I'm not allowed to testify. I'm under a gag order, I guess. I can't even testify at all. REPORTER: Will the gag order stop you from testifying? TRUMP: No, it won't stop me from testifying. The gag order is not for testifying. ANTHONY DABRUZZI, REPORTER/MMJ, SPECTRUM NEWS: Do you plan to testify in court? TRUMP: Probably so. I would like to. I mean, I think so. (END VIDEO CLIP) COOPER: CNN -- he's not going to testify. CNN Legal Analyst -- I'm not a legal analyst. But I can tell you that. CNN Legal Analyst, Norm Eisen, was also inside the courtroom today. He once investigated Trump, as counsel to House Democrats in the first impeachment, has litigated cases involving Trump, previously. He's also the Author of "Trying Trump: A Guide to His First Election Interference Criminal Trial." Norm, do you think Trump will testify? NORM EISEN, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: Anderson, I hope you're not going to replace me as the CNN Legal Analyst, because you hit the nail on the head. COOPER: Wow. There's no -- there's no way. EISEN: There is no way that he is going to testify. His lawyers won't allow it. Of course, he is known to override his lawyers. It would be suicide for him to do that. It not only would harm him, and the Case- in-Chief, or at least they have an argument they can make. In my view, the prosecution just cleared the proof beyond a reasonable doubt, hurdle with Cohen's testimony, solidified it with Cohen's very solid performance, today, on cross. But on sentencing, if Trump is found guilty, if the judge believes that he got on the stand, and lied to him, and his jurors, it virtually assures a sentence of incarceration. So, I think that even Trump is not foolish enough to make that decision. COOPER: And I know you love a good legal phrase. Explain how the prosecution was drawing the sting today. EISEN: Yes, the -- my, I write a CNN Trial Diary for every day of trial. And today was about drawing the sting. It's a trial lawyer term. Elie did it often with some of his more dubious witnesses that he had to put on as a prosecutor. HONIG: A lot of them. EISEN: It's fronting all of the bad news, so that the jury doesn't hear the negatives that Michael Cohen lied, that he's pled guilty to nine felonies, that one of those felonies was for perjury. COOPER: So, it's getting all the stuff out there? EISEN: Get it all out there. And they did a very sophisticated job. Susan Hoffinger, learning from her misadventures on the Stormy Daniels direct, was very adept. And it actually was sophisticated. She planted a number of seeds that will only flourish, when we come back on Thursday, on all of the main lines, the vectors of attack. TOOBIN: Norm, let me ask you about that. Because, OK, it's good to draw the sting. It's good to front the bad news. But what about the bad news? I mean, what about the fact that he's made $3.4 million off of Trump-hating? What about the fact that he has said he wants this jury to convict? I mean, what's the answer to that? [21:50:00] EISEN: I have found mostly in my life, as a defense lawyer, before my foray into prosecuting Donald Trump that if a witness is honest on the stand, honest with the jury, if they fess up to what they did before, if they express remorse for what they did before, if they have a plausible redemption narrative, and if they're likable? That juries will accept them. And I thought that Cohen did all of that. And indeed, he has one advantage, over some of the clients, who I've represented, some of the cooperators, and many who cooperate. He's not working off-time. He's out. TOOBIN: Right. EISEN: So, in that respect, he's better-situated. TOOBIN: Well explain -- explain what you mean by working off-time. EISEN: Very often, the cooperator will be arriving from prison, slept in a suit and a tie to testify. But their freedom depends on how well they do in cooperating with the prosecution. That's not the case for Michael Cohen. So, that's an advantage. And I saw something very interesting today. It's the first time that I've noticed it, in this trial. Again, and again, Susan Hoffinger was trying to get Cohen to talk to the jury. And he started talking to the jury. Several times today, they put down their writing instruments, and they just listened to him. And it felt to me like a conversation. You'd never know. Elie's constantly reminding me, you can't read the minds of the jury. I did bring my jury consultant with me, which I have in common with Susan-- HONIG: Travels with her. EISEN: --Susan Necheles. I brought her one day because I wanted her insights, on what this jury was thinking. But I do think that Michael Cohen had a little bit of a bond that was established over his examination with the jury. COOPER: Yes. EISEN: That is very dangerous for Donald Trump. Todd Blanche had to knock Cohen off. He had one shot. At a first impression, as my mother always said, you only get one chance at a first impression, he blew it. HONIG: How-- COOPER: What did your jury consultant say to you? EISEN: She said that she did not think we were going to get a hung jury, in this case. COOPER: Yes. EISEN: My very first CNN Trial Diary was about Trump's strategy. One angry juror can-- COOPER: Why does she -- why does she think? EISEN: Hung juries are very uncommon, very small percentage of trials turnout in hung juries. And she -- there's certain telltale signs, when you have an angry or an alienated juror. Or you look for the jury. Michael knows this. You look for -- will one of the members of the jury smile at -- persistently smile at the defendant, or wink, or show some tell coming in and out over hostility to the prosecution? She watched all day long. She didn't see any of it. HONIG: Norm, how would you, defense lawyer extraordinaire, have opened your cross examination of Michael Cohen? EISEN: I would have hammered him on his perjury, and I would have gone for-- HONIG: Right. EISEN: --the juggler on the -- some of the bad answers on cross- examination. Nobody says oh, the Clarence Darrow of our time, Alina Habba. But Alina Habba did get some tricky answers from Michael Cohen. I would have gone for the juggler, right back for that, having to do with the most sensitive issues for him, he pled guilty. But we saw today that Cohen would have been ready for even that. That was one of the stings that Susan Hoffinger drew. He had a good answer, about whether he was honest, when he made his initial plea, he said -- he pled guilty. So, he told the judge, he was guilty. And he said since -- you know, I wasn't telling the truth to that judge. But he explains he doesn't deny the facts. He was coerced by the Southern District and threat of prosecuting his wife, to plead to crimes that he didn't commit. One of the most distinguished judges of the Southern District, Judge Rakoff has a whole book, "Why the Innocent Plead Guilty and the Guilty Go Free." That was what Michael explained today. I thought it was very plausible. TOOBIN: One of the most contested issues in this case is one of the lowest profile issues, which is the business records themselves. Do -- themselves. Do you think Cohen helped present the jury with an explanation of how Trump himself was responsible for creating the false business records? [21:55:00] EISEN: He did. He took us through the notes that Allen Weisselberg made of the grossed-up scheme, and then he put Trump in two meetings, one with him and Weisselberg, in Trump Tower, another in the White House, buying into that scheme. If you believe Michael Cohen, I think the jury does, prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Donald Trump falsified those records. COOPER: Norm Eisen, thank you. EISEN: Thanks, Anderson. COOPER: Great accounts of what happened today. Quick programming note. This Friday, with the hush money trial in recess, don't miss a 360 special, my interview with Karen McDougal. 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 ever 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 14, 2024 - 22:00 ET THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED. (COMMERCIAL BREAK) [22:00:30] ABBY PHILLIP, CNN HOST: Welcome to a special edition of NewsNight. I'm Abby Phillip alongside Laura Coates right here. And Donald Trump's lawyers tried to pan fry Michael Cohen on the witness stand today and perhaps the most important day of testimony so far. LAURA COATES, CNN HOST: And you know, tonight, Donald Rumsfeld, yes, that Donald Rumsfeld, gives us all a lens to view what's left in the hush money trial, the known knowns, unknown knowns and unknown unknowns. PHILLIP: So, first, the known knowns, all those bad facts that the prosecution took painstaking care to get in front of the jury so that they did not hear them for the first time in cross-examination, that Cohen was a jerk, that he was a bully, that Cohen was designated a thug, that Michael Cohen cashed in on Donald Trump's name, all of them facts that the government's attorney put on the record to make the cross-examination's case a little bit less of a rough and tumble affair. COATES: Second, you have the unknown knowns, how the jury will actually choose to react to everything they've seen and heard from Cohen. Well, cross-examination began with Cohen's TikToks and got more combative from there, snaking through public statements about Trump. Ones like Donald Trump belonged in a cage, not very nice. The questions probe Cohen's inability to stay away from social media, including, by the way, his podcast schedule. How his memory about Trump calls is perfect but less so when it comes to his interaction with maybe a Manhattan prosecutor, how his obsession with winning Trump's approval spiraled into what they say is a revenge plot. The question is, did any of that connect with the men and women who will actually decide Trump's fate? PHILLIP: Finally, we have the unknown unknown. Will Donald Trump himself testify? He's given both answers to the question, saying, of course, and then he's saying that he couldn't do it because of a gag order, which is, of course, a lie. Trump's lawyers say that there's no determination as of yet about whether the defendant, the former president of the United States, will ultimately take the witness stand, daring to go under oath, under the penalty of perjury in his own defense for what would be a brain- breaking moment for the country, and that might be an understatement. COATES: I mean, brain breaking is, yes, an understatement. We're here with our panel. But, first, I want to start with a little bit of reading of the part of the transcript to help everyone understand exactly what happened in the courtroom. We'll have Elliot Williams as Trump's defense attorney, Todd Blanche. I expect a lot out of you, Elliot. Also, Marcus Childress is Michael Cohen. You too, accents included. We're starting at the third question in cross- examination. Gentlemen, take it away. ELLIOT WILLIAMS, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: And this was you know, it started off with really getting under the witness' skin and Todd Blanche came out with a doozy. So, this was the question. As a matter of fact, on April 23rd, so after the trial started in this case, you went on TikTok and called me a quote, crying little shit, didn't you? MARCUS CHILDRESS, FORMER JANUARY 6 INVESTIGATIVE COUNSEL: That sounds like something I would say. COATES: Objection, Your Honor. Sustained. Sustained. WILLIAMS: Now, there was a sidebar after this, where the judge had said that really, an attorney should not be making himself a focus of a question. It's really irrelevant what a witness says. And he sustained the objection. Now, of course, it was already on the record. The jury heard it, so he couldn't really unring the bell. But there it was. Oh, so, and then, and then it went on. So, President Trump was a boorish cartoon misogynist, didn't you? You said that. CHILDRESS: Sounds like something I would say. WILLIAMS: And those types of comments and names continued on, every single one throughout 2020, correct? CHILDRESS: I'm sure I said something. I can't say that they're all -- WILLIAMS: You recall the first one in 2020 as a Cheeto dusted cartoon villain. CHILDRESS: That also sounds like something I said. WILLIAMS: Now, do you recall that around the same time, October 2020, you started talking about your hope that President Trump would be convicted of a crime, correct? CHILDRESS: Well, no. I don't know if those are the exact words that I said, but the sentiment is correct. WILLIAMS: You think you might have said, I truly effing hope that this man ends up in prison. Is that exact? CHILDRESS: You know, it sounds like my language on Mea Culpa. WILLIAMS: And Michael Cohen was also challenged about his social media taunts as well. There's a whole trove of those, and so let's continue. So Blanche asks, you also talked on social media during this trial about President Trump, have you not? CHILDRESS: There's a theme here, sounds correct, yes. WILLIAMS: So, for example, on April 23rd, which is after the trial started, correct? CHILDRESS: Yes. WILLIAMS: You referred to President Trump as a dictator douchebag, didn't you? [22:05:03] CHILDRESS: Sounds like something I said. WILLIAMS: And on that same TikTok. So, again, on April 23rd, you referred to President Trump when he left the courtroom. You said that he goes right into that little cage, which is where he belongs, in an effing cage like an animal. Do you recall saying that? CHILDRESS: I recall saying that. COATES: That's a dramatic reading, Abby. PHILLIP: Yes. I mean, that's kind of how it went down, intonation and all, Marcus. Thank you for that. Also with us -- COATES: No New York accent, though. PHILLIP: No New York accent. COATES: Where's the New York accent? What are you doing? CHILDRESS: You probably guys know I can't do that. COATES: All right. PHILLIP: But here we are, Kim Wehle, professor at the University of Baltimore School of Law, Tim Parlatore, a former attorney for Donald Trump, and Victoria Nourse, a Georgetown law professor and former chief counsel to then V.P. Biden. They're all with us now. Tim, what did you think of -- I mean, look, we knew this was going to happen, right? We knew that they were going to go hard on all the things that Michael Cohen has been saying and doing. How many times did he say he brought up Donald Trump in every single TikTok or podcast or whatever he has done, Donald Trump has been the subject? Did it matter by the time we got to that, because, as we pointed out, the prosecution tried to get some of this on the table in advance? TIM PARLATORE, FORMER TRUMP ATTORNEY: Yes. It's an interesting way of starting across, to be to be honest with you, because, really, you try and go for a lot of the facts before you go for the bias. I think that's more effective. And, you know, coming right at the gate and making about himself of what Michael Cohen said about him, yes, that's something that -- yes, I've done that before but not on the first question. When I have a witness that said something like that, I hold in my pocket and I keep going on and I wait for the witness to, you know, say something snarky or like earn it, to where I say, oh, you don't like me very much. In fact, you said, and I pull it out at that point, so that it's something that makes sense in sequence to the jury. Because if you just immediately come out at him of, you know, you hate us, you hate me, you hate him, then where do you go from that to then start to get into the substance of the case? PHILLIP: Can I just make one note? Todd Blanche doing this cross is a choice. Todd Blanche, from what I have heard, has not done a lot of cross-examinations. This is not really his wheelhouse. So, some of these things, it's interesting to hear you say that, Tim. There were also some questions even about the way in which he was kind of going back and forth in time, whether that was strategic or just a little bit of a messy preparation in how he was doing this cross-examination. KIM WEHLE, PROFESSOR, UNIVERSITY OF BALTIMORE SCHOOL OF LAW: Well, it sounds like it was a little meandering and maybe a bit confusing for the jury. And it seems like throughout this entire trial his lawyers have two objectives. One is the jury and the other is their client, Donald Trump. So, it's hard to say how much this strategy is really to actually persuade one juror. After all, they don't need all 12 to effectively win this case and how much of it is, you know, Donald Trump is calling the shots like he does with his lawyers. COATES: You know, I mean, the most skilled trial attorneys know that the cross has got to be your forte, right? You have to make sure that you are the one really testifying. I've almost had it explained to me in different ways in training as you got to be the angry suspicious girlfriend You know, it's not that where were you last night? Why didn't you come home? It's got to be I called you 12 times, didn't I? You didn't answer your phone six times. I saw your text messages. I'm not well rehearsed in this because, you know, I've never been a jealous girlfriend. But when you think about how this all plays out, the whole point is for you to demonstrate that you know what they're going to say and only get the yes or no. He was able to essentially have responses, seem a little bit guarded, if not annoyed. That's a problem. VICTORIA NOURSE, GEORGETOWN LAW PROFESSOR: Well, you know, I think that one of the things that we're missing is that all you have to show to get this from the misdemeanor, and we've seen the documents, there's false invoices, we know that, is people to believe that he was correct on the factual thing that Trump actually told him to do this for the election. So, we haven't even gotten to the facts, as you indicated. Normally, you go for the facts, not just straight for the character. So, that suggests they have a weak case, not a strong case. PHILLIP: You mean the defense? You're saying the defense has a weak case? WILLIAMS: And Michael Cohen's testimony was remarkably consistent today and yesterday in that, number one, virtually everything he said was supported by either a document that was written by Allen Weisselberg, the comptroller of the Trump Organization, or checks that were signed or the testimony of other witnesses. It's all incredibly supported testimony. Now, though much of the ballgame ultimately becomes how much the jury believes him, and I think a strategy on the part of the defense team today was just to attack his credibility, because the strength of what he's provided thus far. Now, again, it becomes a credibility contest of how much do we believe this individual who, number one, has a demonstrated clear bias against the defendant and a long rap sheet, you know, of badness in his record. [22:10:00] Now, anybody who's ever -- I mean, Tim, you've worked on these cases too. Anybody who's ever worked on a gang, a drug, a mob case, whatever, no, you can still convict someone over the testimony of really bad people who have really bad stuff in their background. COATES: I mean, crimes are committed not in front of a bus full of nuns, Marcus. I mean, if you're going to prosecute somebody who's engaged in false behavior, you're going to have liars in there. And, by the way, the difference is, for Cohen, they're trying to suggest, if you're the prosecution, that, look, he's not pretending not to be a liar. He's not suggesting that he doesn't lie, and, in fact, this case is about lies, 34 of them. CHILDRESS: And it's something you normally, at least I used to in my experience, bring up in opening statements when I was doing a conspiracy case. Look, you're going to hear from some unsavory people, right, unsavory, just like the defendant here today. You want to loop them all together. And I think it's really important, it hasn't been talked about at least from what I've seen, that Michael Cohen is not testifying under leniency, right? He's not testifying under immunity. He's in a much better position than witnesses I've had who were lieutenants come up and testify. COATES: And why is that though? The fact, if he were -- if he had time overhead, if he was a current inmate, how would that make a difference? CHILDRESS: I think it's easier to show the bias there, like you're testifying and giving the government what they want because you're scared of increased jail time. You're trying to, you know, make sure you stay within the confines of your immunity. You don't have that type of issue here with Michael Cohen. So, I think there is less baggage in that regard. His lies, of course, are enough baggage as is, but you don't have that typical immunity or leniency. That defense counsel can really hammer home to discredit all the testimony. PHILLIP: But he does explain -- this was earlier when the prosecution was still finishing up with him. He explains how he made this turn and why. This is what he told the jury. Cohen, we're in this unique situation I never experienced and my wife, my family, my daughter, my son, all said to me, why are you holding on to this loyalty? What are you doing? We're supposed to be your first loyalty. Hoffinger, that's the prosecutor, says, so what decision did you make? Michael Cohen says, that it was time to listen to them. Hoffinger, what did you decide about where your loyalty should be going forward? Cohen, to my wife, my daughter, my son, and the country. That's a critical moment for the jury to understand what's going on in his head? COATES: And maybe and you've had a lot of people working having represented Trump in the past. He has a command of people psychologically the jury is seeing this. PARLATORE: Yes. And I think that you know, that is a great story on the direct. We'll see how it holds up, you know through the rest of cross. Because, you know, there's a lot more to the story than just that and you know, I think that you know if Todd Blanche does a good job of going through the facts of when he first, you know, had the raid and he was first offered the opportunity to cooperate, and he didn't, and he said very emphatically, I don't, I don't know anything about Donald Trump, no, he wasn't involved, he didn't know about, you know, these checks, I did it to protect Melania. And then go through, you know, what, what changed? Was it his family? Was it the fact that he asked for a pardon and Donald Trump said no? You know, what, what was it that actually turned? PHILLIP: I mean, couldn't it have been all of those things? Trump wanted his loyalty, but clearly wasn't going to reciprocate. WEHLE: Yes. There was -- when he was thrown under the bus, he wasn't brought into the White House. There's a justification for lying when he was under the thumb of Donald Trump and now telling the truth. But it seems like there might be a bit of a weakness for the government in that there were only two conversations that were actually with Donald Trump himself and that between Cohen. I think all the other pieces have been established through documentary evidence, been established through the testimony of David Pecker. Even Hope Hicks testified that the campaign was really worried about the Access Hollywood tape, sort of threading all of that together. But the jury could say, listen, you know, that one piece, I think Michael Cohen is a liar. I'm not going to convict. There's not evidence beyond a reasonable doubt of all of the pieces. WILLIAMS: And it's fascinating because that's the one conversation he seems to remember verbatim, the one that incriminates the defendant, all of these other questions they asked him about today. I don't recall. I don't recall. I don't recall. Yet somehow the one conversation with Donald Trump that would convict him is the one thing that he remembers almost perfectly. PARLATORE: and the one thing that there's no documents to support, too. PHILLIP: Yes. PARLATORE: That's the real problem. PHILLIP: Everyone stick around for us. We got a lot ahead. Coming up next, an underrated moment from today's testimony involving Trump trying to use the power of his Justice Department. COATES: Plus, there was also an eye-opening appearance outside of court today as Trump's entourage adds a pretty powerful new face. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) DONALD TRUMP (R), FORMER U.S. PRESIDENT, 2024 PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: There's no crime here. REP. MIKE JOHNSON (R-LA): There's no crime here. (END VIDEO CLIP) (COMMERCIAL BREAK) [22:19:23] COATES: Well, we've got more now on Trump's hush money trial. Let's have another portion of the transcript where Cohen discusses speaking with Donald Trump right after his home was raided back in 2018. We've got Kim Wehle as the prosecutor, Susan Hoffinger, and Elliot Williams is now Michael Cohen. Take it away. WEHLE: Did you speak with President Trump shortly after these search warrants were executed? WILLIAMS: I did. WEHLE: Can you describe the conversation you had with then President Trump? WILLIAMS: I received a phone call from President Trump in response to me leaving a message for him to call me. I wanted, obviously, him to know what was taking place. And he said to me, don't worry, I'm the president of the United States. [22:20:00] There is nothing here. Everything is going to be okay. Stay tough. You're going to be okay. WEHLE: You've spoken directly with Mr. Trump since that time? WILLIAMS: No, ma'am. WEHLE: Was your call from President Trump at that time important to you? WILLIAMS: Extremely important. WEHLE: Why was it important? WILLIAMS: Because I wanted -- first of all, I was scared. This was the first time in my life anything like this happened. And I wanted some reassurance that Mr. Trump had my back, especially his help with issues that related to him. WEHLE: How, if at all, did that call affect you in terms of how you acted going forward? WILLIAMS: Well, when he expressed to me, don't worry, everything's going to be fine, I'm the president of the United States, I felt reassured because I had the president of the United States protecting me, his Justice Department. This should go nowhere. And so I felt reassured and I remained in his camp. And then in another part of the of the back and forth, Cohen actually references Attorney General William Barr, being the attorney general at the time -- Pardon me, Jeff Sessions, yes, Jeff Sessions, pardon me, being involved in the ordeal. So -- WEHLE: Mr. Cohen, just getting back to where we left off in my questions. In terms of the substance of your conversation with David Pecker about his receipt of the complaint from the Federal Election Commission, did you tell him that someone in particular in the administration would be able to assist in that matter? WILLIAMS: Yes. WEHLE: What did you tell him? WILLIAMS: I told him that the matter is going to be taken care of and the person, of course, who's going to be able to do it is Jeff Sessions. WEHLE: Who was Jeff Sessions at that time? WILLIAMS: The attorney general. WEHLE: Why did you tell him that? WILLIAMS: Because that was post my conversation with the president. WEHLE: And when you say, post, had you previously been told that by President Trump? WILLIAMS: Yes, ma'am. PHILLIP: All right. Let's bring back our panel. COATES: I mean, we were all riveted. That's why there was a little bit of a pause. PHILLIP: That is really shocking. I mean, putting aside this case, that's a shocking excerpt. WEHLE: Well, you know, Abby, it kind of links into the bigger thing that's looming, and which is the election. I mean, this is not just the transaction that gave rise to these 34 counts. This is a hint of a president potentially abusing his power. And, of course, this jury is not here to decide what's going to happen in November, but all eyes certainly are on it. And I would suspect the jury understands the implications and the weight of this decision. COATES: It also puts very clearly in the sight of the jury that we're talking about 34 counts after he is the president. You know, you think about the timeline of this case, which -- I mean, the timeline of, you know, the alleged sexual encounter with Stormy Daniels back, I think, in 2006. There is a long gap between when then she comes forward asking for her story to be made public, that and NDA, and you go back and forth, the payments. But, really, it's the 34 counts post- inauguration that are really the key here. And so him having the power to have his DOJ decide the issue is very telling. NOURSE: Yes, it's extremely telling because he's using the government like a mob boss would use it to cover up what was essentially what he knew. And so it also shows that he knew the basic election connection that is the key to making this a felony. COATES: How does it show that? NOURSE: Because he knows what has gone on. It's consciousness of guilt, basically, that he knows he wants to cover this up. He wants Cohen to go away. He will fix it with Jeff Sessions. PHILLIP: Yes. I mean, Tim, that seems to be why the prosecution wanted to bring this up in part was that Trump today, he said this outside the courthouse, nothing is wrong. I labeled it as attorney's fees, it's totally fine. But in that moment, he clearly thought it wasn't. PARLATORE: Well, and it's interesting, the specificity with which Michael Cohen can discuss this, whereas everything else he doesn't seem to remember, but he doesn't get that into that level of specificity, or are we talking about these counts, or are we talking about the much larger counts that Michael Cohen was facing of the taxi medallions, the, you know, the tax fraud, the false statements, the things that he actually went to jail for? Because, you know, you got to remember the, you know, the election violations that he pleaded guilty for were so minor, they didn't even affect his sentencing guidelines. So, is he talking about this piece, or is he talking about the larger piece? COATES: You know, interesting, and we were talking about, obviously, the cross and how long he's been on the stand, but you had an interesting comment. You seemed to think that the prosecution was almost trying to rush this testimony of Michael Cohen. For some people looking at this who might not have familiarity with how long trials go or how long someone is on the stand, they might say he's been on the stand for more than a day, two days, really. How could that possibly be a rush? PARLATORE: Well, think about -- think back to Pecker and how long he was on the stand and the level of detail that they went through with him. And if you think about the volume of material that Michael Cohen has to go through and the relative, you know, brevity that he did, it was something that it did seem to me to be going much, much faster than I would have expected, given the volume of stuff. [22:25:09] And then seeing some of the detail from these transcripts, it's not the level that I was expecting from them. WILLIAMS: They spent 90 minutes entering checks into the record like last week. We're literally methodically and going through every single -- NOURSE: But don't the documents actually prove the case? That's the point. All they have to prove is that Donald Trump is connected to that falsification, and he did it for the reason of winning election for committing a crime. CHILDRESS: Michael Cohen's providing color, right? By this point, we've seen the whole conspiracy play out, from 2015 all the way through 2017. He's merely providing color because they know the baggage that Michael Cohen provides. Look, I don't have a theater background, so my dramatic reading probably wasn't great, but I am an engineer, and I will say that I found the structure of the prosecution's case to be really good. I thought that they were able to present the whole timeline, present Michael Cohen lying, and then provide a reason why he had lied because of his family, and now he's telling the truth, right? He's telling the truth because he talked to his family. I thought there might be the same type of structure from the cross of going through all of the lies that Michael Cohen is told and then saying, and you're lying because you're vindictive against the president, right? It's the same structure that you could have done in the cross that you could have done on the direct. And I honestly think it's because we're at Tuesday and we're on break tomorrow. And I think that the defense was trying to get haymakers in before the jury went away for 36 hours that they were sitting on these haymakers rather than, you know, having the full story of Michael Cohen sit and marinate for 36 hours. PHILLIP: You're going to have to start over, essentially, from the timeline perspective. COATES: Well, I mean, also it's interesting to me, the idea of, how does a jury see? I'm telling you the truth about being a liar. I mean, that's part of what his testimony is, but also the pre-corroboration that we've been talking about with the documents, Kim, to other witnesses, they know -- I mean, you called it baggage. I mean, he's got like trucks behind him of these things. But the idea that they had the pre-corroboration is for the pacing to go because he is the primary narrator, I'll be at a flawed one. WEHLE: Right. He's sort of connecting all of the dots. And, of course, it's the government's burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt. What does that mean? A doubt for which you can give a reason. And so far, the defense doesn't really have an alternative narrative, right? To your point, he signed the checks from the White House out of his personal account. His low level assistance testified. He was very careful about signing things. It was over $10,000. I had to be approval for it. They carefully demonstrated he kept very tight reins on his money and on his organization. And I think Michael Cohen gives us a flavor of what it was like to be within his tight orbit. So, the idea that, well, it was for Melania, he had no idea, it was really David Pecker and Michael Cohen and Allen Weisselberg doing all this, when we have on audio tape him talking about Karen McDougal. So, he knew about the hush money scheme. But somewhere along the line, poof, when it comes to the relationship right after the Access Hollywood tapes, days before the election, he was just out of it. I don't know that there's another story. PHILLIP: You have to -- right. I mean, you have to wonder whether the prosecution is even going to attempt to dispute the timeline, the facts of the case, or if they're really relying just on the witnesses being unreliable. That may not be enough when even all the unreliable witnesses are kind of singing from the same song about, they're telling the same basic story about who Donald Trump is and what he knew. COATES: Or a witness being absent. PHILLIP: You've been talking more -- COATES: Allen Weisselberg not there. PHILLIP: And that may be this kind of X factor in this. And, you know, the jury could say, well, this is a key person, we didn't even hear from them. That, in and of itself, could be enough to add doubt into the equation. PARLATORE: The judge will instruct them on that. PHILLIP: Yes, and they will get some instructions. Everyone, hang on for us, but thank you very much for that good conversation. It is the hottest place to be, apparently, if you are a Republican seeking Donald Trump's approval. House Speaker Mike Johnson has become the latest to stump for Trump in front of that courthouse. We're going to debate this scene that unfolded today, next. (COMMERCIAL BREAK) [22:33:37] PHILLIP: Despite Donald Trump's trial, there is still, believe it or not, a campaign underway and both candidates are making false claims about perhaps the biggest issue that is on the minds of voters, that's the economy. CNN's Daniel Dale is back with us for a fact check, starting with President Biden. DANIEL DALE, CNN REPORTER: Yeah, Abby, so President Biden made a false claim about inflation in an interview with CNN last week, and he was roundly criticized for it, including by former President Trump. And then today, he did another interview, this time with Yahoo Finance, where he made the same false claim again. Listen to those two claims. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) JOE BIDEN, U.S. PRESIDENT: No president's had the run we've had in terms of creating jobs and bringing down inflation. It was 9 percent when I came to office. 9 percent. I think inflation has gone slightly up. It was at 9 percent when I came in, and it's now down about 3 percent. (END VIDEO CLIP) DALE: So inflation was nowhere close to 9 percent when President Biden took office. In January 2021, it was 1.4 percent. So the president is making it sound like inflation today, which is 3.5 percent, is lower than when he took office. It's actually substantially higher. Now, it did fall, it did hit 9 percent during his presidency, 9.1 percent in June 2022. It's fallen since then. But the president is making that month, 16 months into his tenure, sound like the starting point that Trump left him. It's not. Now, Trump also made a false claim about inflation today. Listen to what he said in his comments after court in Manhattan. [22:35:03] (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) DONALD TRUMP, FORMER U.S. PRESIDENT: We have record inflation, and it's back. And people are dying because of it. You would have had no inflation with me. We were down to practically nothing. (END VIDEO CLIP) DALE: He kept saying record inflation. Inflation today is nowhere close to a record, that 3.5 percent, certainly elevated by recent standards, but not close to the 23-plus percent we had in 1920. Now, you might say, OK, 1920, that's a century ago. But we had over 5 percent in 2008. We had over 14 percent in 1980. So you don't have to go back a century to know that we are not currently anywhere close to record high inflation. COATES: Wow. And again, everyone talking about this and all the false statements are being made. Thank you so much for fact-checking all of this. And I couldn't help but notice who was behind the former president, people like, I don't know, Doug Burgum and others, while he made those statements. And, you know, it is up-front season, it seems now, for the TV networks. And it seems it might be a new season of "The Apprentice". And "Entourage" is being pitched in lower Manhattan, inside and outside of Donald Trump's courtroom, because a revolving door of his allies making appearances in what appears to be a loyalty test of sorts, V.P. contenders, his daughter-in-law, lawmakers. But today, a pretty extraordinary scene, even for 2024. PHILLIP: The speaker of the United States House of Representatives, the speaker showing up outside of a courthouse to call the legal system corrupt and illegitimate. Again, the speaker of the House at a trial involving a porn star, hush money, and corruption, except that, objectively, it was pure theater. Mike Johnson didn't even go inside the courtroom to observe that trial, to hear any of the testimony or any of the facts of this case. Instead, he gave us his best Trump impression. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) TRUMP: There's no crime here. REP. MIKE JOHNSON (R-LA), SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES: There's no crime here. TRUMP: This is four weeks of keeping me from not campaigning. JOHNSON: They are doing this intentionally to keep him here and keep him off of the campaign trail. TRUMP: It could have been brought six years ago, seven years ago, almost eight years ago. JOHNSON: Now eight years later, suddenly they've resurrected this thing. TRUMP: We have a corrupt judge. You know who appointed him? Democrat politicians. JOHNSON: What we've got here is a partisan Democrat district attorney. We have a Biden donor judge. (END VIDEO CLIP) COATES: Well, the followers spent the microphone time smearing witnesses that you know Donald Trump cannot because, of course, he is a defendant and he's under a gag order. In fact, one of the accolades just straight up admitted it, saying the not so quiet part out loud. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) SEN. TOMMY TUBBERVILLE (R-AL): Hopefully, we have more and more senators and congressmen go up every day to represent him and be able to go out and overcome this gag order. And that's one of the reasons we went is to be able to speak our piece for President Trump. (END VIDEO CLIP) COATES: And here I thought there were other things to do on Capitol Hill. For more, I want to bring in former Trump White House communications director Mike Dubke and former Hillary Clinton spokesman Philippe Reines. First of all, Michael, I just heard you do a big sigh. Is it because you're so thrilled about trying to explain this? MICHAEL DUBKE, FORMER TRUMP WHITE HOUSE COMMUNICATIONS DIRECTOR: Oh, no, I'm ready for that. It's 10:30 at night. COATES: OK. PHILLIP: OK, that's true. DUBKE: That's more of the side somewhere. The trial is a case. We are now running a presidential campaign out of a courtroom. So right now, this is like a Trump rally. The elected officials are coming to the rally. And we wouldn't think twice if the speaker came to Dayton, Ohio, for a rally with the president. So, you know, they go to where the campaign's being run. And it's now being run out of the 15th floor of a Manhattan courtroom. COATES: Except it's a court of law. PHILIPPE REINES, FORMER HILLARY CLINTON SPOKESMAN: Except. But also that's good gloss. But there are 217 members of Republicans in the House. There are 49 senators. There are 25 governors. By my count, there are less than 10 that have shown up. And the ones that have shown up are auditioning for V.P. like Doug Burgum or Byron Donalds. And oh, I'm sorry, J.D. Vance. So let's not get too much into it. PHILLIP: Vivek Ramaswamy. REINES: Vivek Ramaswamy. DUBKE: They're also the same people that'd be showing up at a rally. Well, then I hope he gets more people than that when he has actual rallies, because you've got a lot of Republicans who are not showing up. These folks are showing up because they need something from Donald Trump. Mike Johnson was just saved by Donald Trump a week ago. What's sad about this, what I was thinking about on the way here is it's one thing if they had been in the courtroom a week ago or a week from now, J.D. Vance sat there looking at Michael Cohen. Michael Cohen spent 13 years of his life subjugating himself for Donald Trump. And now his life is ruined for it. You may not like him. I don't like him. I don't think he's a good guy. But it's so funny to watch people go down there or go up to New York and throw themselves in front of Donald Trump to just genuflect and then look at someone who did that for 13 years and not realize that no one comes out of these interactions, Donald Trump, for the better. [22:40:08] COATES: But you know what? One reason they wouldn't have been there last week, perhaps, is because of the nature of that testimony. Remember, Stormy Daniels was last week and she's perhaps not as one as an easy political target. But listen to what former Congresswoman Liz Cheney said about Speaker Johnson. She called him out and his support on X today, writing, I'm surprised that Speaker Johnson wants to be in the -- I cheated on my wife with the porn star club. I guess he's not that concerned with teaching morality to our young people after all. When you look at this, Michael, I mean, he is one of the most conservative members of the House. I mean, I know that Marjorie Taylor Greene questions that these days, but he's bona fide. DUBKE: Well, look, I think his office would tell you and his folks will tell you that that the standard bearer of the Republican Party, who is going to be Donald Trump for the presidency, is in a situation that most Republicans, if not a majority of Americans, look to be political lawfare. This is politics by another means to have the president drawn into a, you know, a misdemeanor that then became a felony because the, you know, the district attorney got creative. So what his people will tell you and what Speaker Johnson will tell you is he was there to kind of draw a light on that fact. PHILLIP: Although he didn't go inside the courthouse. That's not what he did. DUBKE: What I understood is he went into the overflow room because there weren't enough seats in the courtroom. REINES: They couldn't find the speaker of the House. COATES: I was going to say, I've been in the courtroom. DUBKE: It's public seat. It's public seating. It's Manhattan. PHILLIP: Hey, listen, yes. Let me just let me just fact check this for a second. When Donald Trump came into the court yesterday with his massive entourage, they all came with him and they all sat right in front of the courthouse. It was not public seating in that case. So if he wanted to go in, he could have. Real quick, though, Mike, all these V.P. folks who want to get in Trump's good graces, they're all auditioning this week. But how are they even differentiating themselves? Is it just the act of showing up that Trump wants to see? What is he looking for? DUBKE: Well, I think what he's looking for is a way around the gag order. I mean -- PHILLIP: What does he -- what does he want them to do to prove themselves? DUBKE: Well, I don't. I'm not going to necessarily answer the question of what he wants them to do to prove themselves, because I don't know. But what I do, what I do, what I am witnessing is that they have the ability to say the things that Donald Trump has been wanting to say, but has been basically struck down 10 times for saying. So this is one way to get around the -- to get around the gag order. The other thing is timing is everything in politics. That's an old saying that we all have. And to the point of why are they there this week? I think they're there this week if I had to guess. And I was thinking about this in the car ride over as well. If I had-- REINES: Different cars. DUBKE: -- different cars, if I had to guess, it's because they are watching a prosecution that's flailing and a case that may turn 12 Manhattanites into individuals that are acquitting Donald Trump in this -- in this trial. And they want to be part of that. I think there's a lot of -- I think there's a lot of timing here. I don't think it's necessarily all this the way that it's being described as auditions for the V.P. spot. I think there's multiple things that are happening. COATES: You know what, -- REINES: -- they don't know. COATES: -- I mean, just to say if it's flailing, one could argue you don't need it. Why would they go? DUKE: Well, we know it's now it's time. REINES: Well, they don't know what he wants. It's sort of like a decathlon where you don't know what the actual events are. They know that they should go and they should attack, you know, the prosecutor. They should attack the Georgia prosecutor. They should attack Jack Smith. They should raise some money. They should do this. They need -- they have to check all the boxes just to be even on par with everyone else. There's no downside. I mean, I think jokes aside, Mike Johnson is the speaker of the House. There was something even in this day and age where we have seen things really fall apart, including the fact that the former president of United States is on trial for paying off an adult film star. There's something about that that was particularly unfortunate. He actually managed to make Kevin McCarthy's visit to Mar-a-Lago in 2017 look dignified in the sense that it's one thing to make pilgrimages to Mar-a-Lago. It's another thing to go out in the steps of the Capitol and say that Donald Trump is being mistreated or persecuted to go to New York, to go to this trial. I think it was just demeaning to Mike Johnson. And again, Mike Johnson is just the next iteration in some way of Michael Cohen. PHILLIP: This was a line crossed. I mean, the speaker of the House is a constitutional position. It is -- it is a representative position of the United States government. And for him to go to a courthouse and demean a court of law, you may not like the charges, but it's a court of law. That -- that was a line he chose to cross today. And I think history will remember that to a degree. [22:45:09] DUBKE: Well, yeah, I listen. I do think that he needed to, if you have the perspective that there is that the law is being used as a political weapon. And if -- if Speaker Johnson believes that, then you go to where that weapon is. PHILLIP: If he believes REINES: -- that what he was there PHILLIP: -- If Speaker Johnson believes that, then he would denounce -- if Speaker Johnson believed that he would denounce Donald Trump for saying he wants to prosecute his political enemies. Mike and Philippe, thank you both very much. Coming up, we're going to talk with Michael Cohen's former attorney, Lanny Davis, about his former client's testimony. Stay with us. (COMMERCIAL BREAK) [22:50:06] PHILLIP: It's time for "Champions for Change", a look at the unsung people whose ideas and innovations are dramatically improving lives, business and society. COATES: And I get to tell you a personal story about a dentist who's providing both dental care and hope for the people who need that the most. It's a story that's really, well, it hits home for me. (BEGIN VIDEOTAPE) DR. DONDRE SIMPSON, DENTIST: Dude, how you doing, man? You doing good? DR. HAZEL HARPER, DENTIST: He does so much more than clean teeth. SIMPSON: Awesome. KATRINA UPTON, NEW FOUNDATIONS HOME FOR CHILDREN: He teaches, he motivates. He's like a therapist. He's so much more than a dentist. COATES: How are you? 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 say 99.9 percent 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 PRINCE, DENTAL PATIENT: I got here around 2019 because I had other foster home that 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 could 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. He's absolutely creating a brighter future for these kids. HARPER: 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. 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) PHILLIP: I love that so much, Laura. COATES: Yeah. PHILLIP: I got a couple thoughts. One, now we know where these beautiful pearly lights come from. OK. COATES: What did you say, Abby? PHILLIP: Your dad did a great job. But more importantly, just on a serious note, yeah, this work is so important because people don't realize is dentistry is not just about aesthetics. It's not even about comfort. It's actually about health and people's quality of life. And for people who don't have a lot of money, that is the very first thing they don't have access to. They might go their whole lives without ever sitting in a dentist chair. And you just showed us really what servant leaders do when they really look at those small things that people forget about and say, what can I do? COATES: It's such an important part. And thank you for saying that, because I think it's more than just, of course, it's also about how many people, how they want to present themselves to the world. I can't tell you how many people I've seen growing up in my dad's office who came in covering their mouth. [22:55:00] They didn't know they didn't want to talk. They were self-conscious. And you think of all the people who are voiceless for a variety of reasons. But to have someone care enough in all walks of life to meet you where you are and allow you the opportunity and the freedom to speak and present yourself. Imagine what the absence of that silence really looks like. And so it's really a very beautiful and powerful thing. And of course, I think seeing black dentists in particular is something that I have always grown up watching and seeing. And to have an opportunity to honor Dr. Dondre as well. PHILLIP: It's good to see it on the big screen. COATES: Yeah. And you can also tune in Saturday at 9 p.m. Eastern for the "Champions for Change" one-hour special. That's only on CNN. PHILLIP: And our special coverage of Trump's hush money trial continues after this. Stay with us. (COMMERCIAL BREAK) Laura Coates Live Aired May 14, 2024 - 23:00 ET THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED. (COMMERCIAL BREAK) [23:00:45] LAURA COATES, CNN HOST: Well, tonight, on a special edition of "Laura Coates Live," Michael Cohen's former attorney, Lanny Davis, is here with us in studio. Does he think Cohen can withstand what's coming for him on the stand? ABBY PHILLIP, CNN HOST: And we've got Anthony Scaramucci, who will join us later in this hour. His name was invoked in court today, and we'll ask him about that moment and the political cavalry that Donald Trump has called in. COATES: Good evening. I'm Laura Coates alongside Abby Phillip right here in D.C., and we do coordinate our outfits intentionally for you after 11:00. The question also is, is Michael Cohen motivated by redemption or revenge? That's a choice the jury is going to have to answer and be presented with. The prosecution is asking the jurors to look past all, and I mean all, of Cohen's many lies and misdeeds and to believe that their star witness, when he says that Trump not only directed him to keep an alleged sex scandal quiet, but also knew of a bogus plan to disguise payments to reimburse him. Cohen referenced a February 2017 White House Oval Office meeting. And this photo, the jury was told, was taken right afterward. From the transcript, Cohen says -- quote -- "So I was sitting with President Trump and he asked me if I was okay. He asked me if I needed money, and I said, nope, all good. He said, because I can get a check. And I said, no. I said, I'm okay. He said, um, all right, just make sure you deal with Allen. Question, do you say anything about what would be forthcoming to you? Cohen responded, yes, it would be a check for January and February." PHILLIP: Now, the defense, they took the gloves off the very second that they got Michael Cohen in cross-examination. Seriously, this was the first question Todd Blanche asks. You went on TikTok and called me a "crying little shit," didn't you? Cohen responds, sounds like something I would say. And then later on, Blanche asked Cohen some pretty direct questions about his feelings about his former boss. Blanche asks, I'm just asking you to say yes or no. Do you want President Trump to get convicted in this case? Cohen, sure. Blanche, you referred to President Trump as a boorish cartoon misogynist, didn't you? Cohen, sounds like something I would say. Blanche, you think you might have said "I truly effing hope that this man ends up in prison." Is that exact? Cohen, sounds like my language on "Mea Culpa." COATES: So that's the new version of yes. Sounds like what I would actually say. Well, Cohen's plan, of course, is to keep calm and carry on when he returns to stand on Thursday. Remember, there's no court on Wednesdays. But as Mike Tyson famously said, everyone has a plan until they get punched in the mouth. Joining us now, Michael Cohen's friend and former lawyer, Lanny Davis. He prepped Cohen for a 2019 congressional hearing. Lanny, you know, first of all, you and I spoke this -- early this morning on Sirius XM talking about what to expect. And at that time, you were pretty critical about the fact that you thought that it seemed like Michael Cohen was on the defense. He was not just the witness. He was the defendant and that they were going after him. They did just that. LANNY DAVIS, FORMER ATTORNEY FOR MICHAEL COHEN: Well, they changed the subject to what the case is about. The case is about whether or not Mr. Trump, for political motives, decided to pay Stormy Daniels to prevent her from revealing the affair. And the political motives make it a crime. Hush money alone is not a crime. There has been so much evidence besides Michael Cohen of political motives, starting with David Pecker, including Hope Hicks and several other witnesses. So, there's evidence that it was a political crime. The federal prosecutors called it a political crime. And Michael Cohen went to jail for that. The federal prosecutors said that "individual one," otherwise known as Donald Trump, directed. That's the federal prosecutors who worked for the Trump administration used the word "directed." So, when Michael Cohen says anything, and the whole pattern for the rest of his testimony, you're going to see, wraps up what we've previously seen in documents, witnesses, text messages, some of them from Trump loyalists like Hope Hicks. PHILLIP: And there were -- COATES: Sorry. There was pre-crap collaboration. But I do want to know -- I mean, he was very calm. He was very measured. You and I talked. You were in court yesterday about this very point. This is not the Michael Cohen people are accustomed to seeing on the airwaves. [23:05:00] Is that why they started out trying to antagonize him on the cross? DAVIS: I'm sure they're trying to antagonize him. But let me remind you that this is his third rodeo, third time. The first time was on television, live, under oath, before Congress, with Republicans Jim Jordan and Mark Meadows, future chief of staff, with a sign behind them that said, liar, liar, pants on fire. For the next eight hours, all they did was call him a liar. And I sat behind him, you may see me once in a while, and when I heard his tone going up, we had a little signal, I would touch his back. So, I wasn't there today. It sounds like somebody was naming me, and just as well I wasn't there. But Michael was resolved. On Mother's Day night, we talked, I have to admit, and he said, I'm going to stay calm just as I did before the congressional committee. PHILLIP: But I do have to -- COATES: Do you have to try that sometimes, Abby? (LAUGHTER) PHILLIP: Only to tell you to calm down a little bit. (LAUGHTER) I have to -- I have add an addendum, though, to what you just said, Lanny, because the crime here is not just that it was made -- the payments were made for political purposes, but that the records were falsified and that Trump either knew about it or directed it. And that's the part where it becomes Michael Cohen's word against, well, maybe not Donald Trump's, but they're going to impeach his credibility on that very issue. And so that explains why prosecutors are going at this issue of how can you trust that Michael Cohen is really reformed. I want to read a little bit of what he said about why he kind of changed his mind about Trump. He said, my family, my wife, my daughter, my son, all said to me, why are you holding on to this loyalty? What are you doing? We're supposed to be your first loyalty. You were there for some of this when it was happening. Why should the jury buy that and not buy the idea that, hey, he turned on Trump and he made $3.4 million? DAVIS: Well, first of all, my decision to represent Michael and put him in front of a congressional committee was all about whether he would be believable. He persuaded me that he was contrite because he was willing to say in public, on television, I'm ashamed of what I did. And I saw his family and their reaction that it was time for him to tell the truth and stop lying for Donald Trump. So, he had to turn his life in a different direction. Whether the jury believes it's sincere because he still feels anger towards Donald Trump and whether they say, yeah, I can get why he's angry, that's going to be an issue for the jury. But I am telling you that there is a part of our American judicial system where pretty bad people, and I wouldn't say Michael is bad, but people who have made a lot of mistakes, some of them in organized crime, are the top witnesses for the prosecutors. They told the story of truth and they have to be believed despite their prior misdeeds. PHILLIP: Can I ask you about his decision to say, I'm not sure, sounds like me, might have been me, those kinds of answers. You weren't there in court today. But was that the right choice to make in terms of how he answered those pretty direct questions about things that he said on social media and elsewhere? DAVID: So, with all due respect, you're paid to do what you do, to ask a question like that. And it's a professional question. I take no objection. I'm not going to second guess somebody under that kind of pressure in the beginning of his testimony and judge those kinds of answers. Would I have preferred him to say yes or no? Of course, I'm a lawyer. But when he testified for eight hours in front of the worst kind of attacks, personal attacks on his family and his truth by congressional Republicans, he held up pretty good. So, I think those answers, with all due respect, over a period of time, he got pretty good grades for today staying on the level playing field and not playing with the facts and telling the truth. COATES: Well, you know, Gene, on that point, I want to bring in our panel. We've got a great panel of people here talking about all these issues. We've got law enforcement reporter for "The Washington Post," Devlin Barrett is here, CNN legal analyst, former deputy assistant attorney general for legislative affairs, Elliot Williams, former federal prosecutors Alyse Adamson and also Gene Rossi here as well. You know, it's interesting to think about all of this. By the way, Gene represented Keith Davidson at one point as well. GENE ROSSI, FORMER FEDERAL PROSECUTOR: I did, yeah. COATES: Let me ask you about this because, at Abby's point, the way he answered questions, they really want to attack Michael Cohen's credibility. They want to suggest that, as my friend Joey Jackson said, it's about rap. We know revenge. ROSSI: Yes. COATES: It's about trying to antagonize, about trying to figure what the "P" was. But you know what? It was a good answer, he said. (LAUGHTER) The whole point of this is that he was trying to suggest that the entirety of the defense has to be, don't believe this guy, he only wants to see Trump go down. But the prosecution, they got to freeze it in time and say, that's how he feels now. The question is whether he falsified documents then. ROSSI: Well, here's how I would approach the cross-examination. I'll get to the direct exam in a second. Mr. Blanche blew an opportunity, start off that cross with going after his fidelity to the oath. [23:10:03] He lied before a U.S. district judge under oath. And instead of focusing at the beginning on the oath, he focuses on some comment that he made about Todd Blanche. When I was a prosecutor and even as a defense attorney, you never make the case about yourself. COATES: The judge said that. The judge criticized him at the sidebar for that very thing. ROSSI: Absolutely. So, I would have -- I think of a three-barrel shotgun. The first barrel has, you don't have a fidelity to the oath. The second is, you have prejudice. You don't just hate Donald Trump, you despise him. And the third, and you never have this trilogy with a witness, the third is he made a lot of money hating Trump and being a liar. So, that's -- those are the chapters I would focus on. But where the rubber meets the road in this case is in the direct exam of Michael Cohen. He -- for the first time, the prosecutors put on evidence that Donald Trump was explained why we're doing the souffle invoices. He was explaining why we have these checks. That's the only direct evidence. And the corroboration is going to save the day because the corroboration supports what Michael Cohen says. COATES: Elise, you've been a phenomenal trial lawyer from my own armada as U.S. attorney's office in D.C., and I wonder how you would have approached this because, as Gene is talking about, the way Todd Blanche came out to attack on cross, he didn't talk about laying foundationally, you know, reasons as to why he was biased against Trump. It was about Todd Blanche. Why do you think they did that? ALYSE ADAMSON, FORMER ASSISTANT U.S. ATTORNEY: Yeah, I think that it was to hook the jury. My initial impression was it was a shock value, right? Michael Cohen had been very strong on direct. He had just provided a very compelling narrative as to why he was being truthful and why he could be believed. He was a changed man. And I think that was a defense tactic to just remind the jury who we're really talking about. No, no, no. This is Michael Cohen. He has vitriol. He's a mean person. He's a jerk. We heard somebody describe him as a jerk, right? And it also kind of woke them up because he's starting with a cuss word. So, while I agree with Gene that, ultimately, they need to discredit his entire account and they need to meticulously go through kind of the account of the conversation where Trump ultimately directed this payment, I can also understand why the defense started the way they did, because they thought it was going to be strong. PHILLIP: You know, there's something to be said for waking the jury up because -- (LAUGHTER) ROSSI: Yeah. PHILLIP: -- this goes on a long time. And Michael Cohen is so even keel that it is -- the prosecution's case with him was very methodical, it was very plotting, and then this happens. And then finally, there's a sidebar. Yesterday, there was none of that happening. So, Devlin, do you think that that was effective? But then the other part of it is, by the time the defense gets to Michael Cohen, they start out with the shock value, but then, do they start prosecuting their case or is Todd Blanche kind of meandering around in this timeline to try to make hits at Michael Cohen where he can? DEVLIN BARRETT, LAW ENFORCEMENT REPORTER, WASHINGTON POST: So, I'm of the school -- Ellie and I have talked about this before. I'm of the school where I think clock management is incredibly important in trials. And I think -- I think Blanche might have been doing some clock management today because, yes, he wants a shock value, yes, he wants to sort of like, let's remember who you are a little bit for the jury. And by all accounts, the jury was very keyed in the moment Todd Blanche walks up to the podium. I don't think he actually needed that shock value. I think this jury has shown it's right on top of this. But I do think their big shot comes on Thursday. They want to wear him down. They want to tire him out. They want to make him snarl the way he snarled for so many years for Trump. And even if he doesn't snarl, he could have a problem because, to your point, all those answers about like, well, I'm not sure, did I say that two months ago, the man is recounting in detail conversations from eight years ago, and he suddenly has a hard time remembering what he himself said two months ago. That's not a great look over a long period of time. I think witnesses can get away with a little of that. I don't think he can get away with a lot of that. COATES: Ellie, do you have a Sharpie? Because you want to remind the audience that Donald Trump signs his checks with a Sharpie. Is that why you have this today? ELLIOT WILLIAMS, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: How many years have we been doing this together, like literally? COATES: I don't know. I can't recall right now. WILLIAMS: Of those years we've been doing this together, how many times have you seen me with a Sharpie? Literally every time. It is my thing, like Donald Trump -- COATES: I make fun every time. WILLIAMS: -- and Brett Kavanaugh. You do make the joke every time. And Brett Kavanaugh is another Sharpie user as well. Fun fact. So, you know -- (LAUGHTER) You know, an alternative theory about the cross-examination, which is that attorneys don't need to finish their argument when questioning a witness. [23:15:00] They can leave the witness up to the point that leaves an open question. Where were you on Monday? Where were you on Tuesday? Where were you on Wednesday? And then stop right there. And in your closing argument, you say, therefore, on Thursday, this is where the witness was. Right? And I think what they might have been doing is leaving some breadcrumbs that they can tie up in their closing argument. But, you know -- but to Devlin's point, there are still many areas in which they can quite aggressively attack the witness, and even just running down the litany of the people that he has been found to lie to. Sir, did you lie to your wife? Yes. Did you lie to the IRS? Yes. Did you lie to Congress? Yes. Are you may be lying to this jury now? Whoa, you know, and hold on there. And they can quite effectively, with just a matter of questions, really undermine the witness. COATES: Let me ask you. I mean, Lanny, their arguments are pretty strong to suggest that they're trying to say -- look, they want to take away this facade of a calm person. You're talking about motivated by the fact that you thought he was a changed man. Does he have to be a changed man to be an effective witness to the prosecution here? DAVIS: No. He just has to be himself. He has fundamentally changed. And I said to you that for a whole day in front of Congress, he was unrecognizable. He answered questions that were quite provocative. He was called all sorts of names. Jim Jordan wasn't exactly civil with him. And he kept his calm. I also would repeat to my fellow lawyers here, I sat for two years with the prosecutors as they presented and constructed a case that didn't require Michael Cohen to testify. If he wasn't on the witness stand, the documents show that there was a campaign motive, Pecker and Hope Hicks alone. And the issue of whether these were attorney's fees or reimbursements was resolved by Rudy Giuliani on national television. Well, of course they were reimbursements. You don't need Michael Cohen for either of those elements of the crime. The booking of the charge, Michael Cohen wasn't there when they were booked falsely as legal expenses. Of course, they weren't legal expenses. But don't forget Weisselberg's handwritten notes that proved they were not legal expenses. They were trued up and divided by 12. It had nothing to do with legal expenses. WILLIAMS: You had me to that last sentence, Lanny. That Allen Weisselberg's handwriting alone is enough to convict a witness -- to convict the defendant. Pardon me. And I just think -- you know, the notion that -- your points are all well taken, but the notion that documents are sufficient is simply not something I can agree with. I think the documents are incredibly persuasive. DAVIS: But they don't lie. WILLIAMS: They don't lie. You can't cross-examine documents. And the documents are incredibly persuasive, particularly that Allen Weisselberg one. But the person who was in the room is probably the most compelling piece of evidence you can have. And how much the jury trusts that person will determine whether the case rises or falls? ROSSI: I've got to say this. I have convicted people with just documents, by the way. WILLIAMS: I'm sure. DAVIS: Tax cases. But what's unique about this case is you have documents, common sense, you have documents that suggest that Donald Trump knew what was going on, just the documents themselves. But Elliot is absolutely right. You need an editorial person to kind of explain why a certain document was done this way, why we signed it this way. And where the rubber meets the road, it goes back to what I said five minutes ago. If the jury believes that Donald Trump had a conversation with Allen Weisselberg and Michael Cohen about the purpose of these invoices, he's guilty in a New York minute. If they don't believe him, then we could have a hung jury. WILLIAMS: Really quick, to your point, to your point, there's a big difference between common sense and reasonable doubt. And I think the case has been proven to common sense spectacularly. These questions about how much do we trust the witness, how much -- I mean, we trust the documents, but how much do we trust what we're hearing is where reasonable doubt comes in. That's why no matter what the strength of the evidence is here, there are enough questions that at least a reasonable jury ought to at least say, wait a second, I don't know. COATES: Quick last word, Lanny Davis. DAVIS: If you fall asleep at night and there's no snow on the ground -- WILLIAMS: Oh, here we go. DAVIS: -- and you wake up in the morning and there's snow on the ground, this jury will convict beyond a reasonable doubt. The evidence here is so strong for that inference that I think it's a strong case. WILLIAMS: If I don't have my glasses on -- DAVIS: There has to be an average. WILLIAMS: There are all kinds of questions in which my perception of it might be tainted. DAVIS: Well, your Sharpie does -- COATES: Oh! WILLIAMS: Oh, burn. COATES: Oh, okay, hold on, I leave it there. I told you, I -- the Sharpie invites the critique. Lanny Davis, I'm just messing with you. Thank you so much. Everyone, stand by. We've got a lot more to talk about, including Michael Cohen's public insults, getting the full attention of the jury and Donald Trump. Someone who was in court is here to tell us what she saw. PHILLIP: Plus, there was a show of force outside of the courtroom today and attacks against Michael Cohen. Trump's allies appeared at court as Trump himself reveals something to them that he would likely never say on camera. We've got new reporting straight ahead. (COMMERCIAL BREAK) [23:23:49] COATES: So, here's a question. If you were given, I don't know, a bunch of insults that you said against someone and that someone was just a couple feet away, would it throw you off your game? That's exactly what the defense was trying to do when it came to Michael Cohen. Todd Blanche trying to trigger the former attorney for Donald Trump by using his own words against him. I mean, here's just a bit of a sampling of some of the things that he presented to him. Quote -- "People will not be satisfied until this man is sitting inside the cell." Another quote -- "He goes right into that little cage, which is where he belongs, in an effing cage like an animal." "Cheeto-dusted cartoon villain. "Dictator douchebag." I mean, Cohen didn't actually take the bait, appearing very calm on the stand. As for Trump's demeanor, well, the photos, before court starts every day, are any indication you think he would be all glares, and you think the most intense of those glares would be reserved for his nemesis. But Trump had his eyes closed for a lot of Cohen's testimony, although he did look at him during a few key moments. I want to bring in someone who was inside the courtroom today, Shayna Jacobs, federal courts and law enforcement reporter for "The Washington Post." Shayna, so glad to see you. Um, it's the cross we've all been waiting for. [23:25:00] This essentially -- that was the witness we're waiting for. Now, it's the cross. The Trump team versus Michael Cohen. Tell me from your vantage point, what was your impression of the way Michael Cohen was testifying and also how he was received? SHAYNA JACOBS, REPORTER, THE WASHINGTON POST: On direct examination, Michael Cohen did his absolutely best -- absolute best job of being professional, of coming across as competent and calm, sort of the opposite of the public persona we all know of him. And on cross examination, Todd Blanche tried to chip away at that image that he had sort of successfully presented to the jury over the last day and a half. It started to probably plant some seeds in the jury's minds. The immaturity of the some of the tweets and some of the messages and some of the public comments that Blanche is going to keep presenting to the jury for at least another day, that's a big part of Michael Cohen's character. It's a big part of the persona that we've all come to know after over the past eight years. So -- COATES: At the same token, though, Shayna, right? I mean, some of how people have described or perceived the former president has been similarly the idea of, you know, it comes down to that school bus playground. I know you are, but what am I? Discussions that are happening. I do wonder to what extent that's playing with the jury. Did you get a sense that there were any audible reactions or anything that would indicate that the jury is showing how they feel about any of this? They've been pretty stoic. JACOBS: They've been absolutely stoic. They're extremely professional and business-like and cool throughout this process. They're paying attention constantly. None of them -- I mean, occasionally, some of them, their eyes wander a little bit around the room, but they're not bored. Some of them are taking notes. Some of them are taking notes diligently. They are just paying attention and absorbing absolutely everything. And I think cross-examination was especially captivating. It's only just the beginning, but they were starting to see this tension unravel between Cohen and Todd Blanche. So, it's only going to grow. And I'm sure they're only going to be more absorbed in the testimony Thursday. COATES: I mean, it does seem, in some respects, that Trump was more animated while he was listening to Stormy Daniels's testimony. I remember being -- you know, watching and seeing that he would be touching or hitting. I was hearing the arm of his counsel talking to his attorneys to have them object. There was a different comparison point these days, right? Is there any idea of how he presented this time around during Cohen's testimony? JACOBS: I mean, some of us noticed he was doing the thing where he's closing his eyes again. And as far as I can tell, when he's doing that, he's not really sleeping. He's sorts of just relaxing and taking in what he's hearing. So, there was definitely some of that today. And then other times, I think he was watching the screen right on the defense table with a better image of Cohen than he might actually have himself at the defense table. It's sort of the witness seat is kind of cut off by an angle on the bench. So, he's watching the screen in front of him and he's listening. I mean, I can't swear that he's watching constantly and watching very intently, but he's listening to every word. COATES: Really quick, too, I mean, the judge, I understand, at some point, was getting a little bit annoyed with the way the cross was going, even having a sidebar, telling defense counsel, asking the question, why are you making this about yourself, when he was leading off questions about what Michael Cohen said about him. What was the judge like today? JACOBS: The judge did not show any outward frustration with Blanche or anyone else. I mean, he's keeping -- he's running a very smooth show. You know, Trump has not been scolded that we're aware of since that one time, either, I guess it was last week. But Judge Merchan is very cool. He's not showing any favoritism. I'm sure the defense would argue that they are sort of selectively scolded more regularly than the other side is. But he does not lose his temper. And if he ever gets to the point where he's about to lose his temper, he calls a sidebar or calls a break. That's just sort of how it has been throughout, including today. COATES: Well, that's an important point. The jury is the fact finder and it's their ultimate conclusion through their eyes, not through the lens of the judge. This is really fascinating, to have you in the courtroom. Thank you so much for bringing us the latest. Shayna Jacobs, thank you. JACOBS: Thank you. PHILLIP: And up ahead, Trump hauling some of his closest allies to the courtroom. [23:30:02] And now, they're going in front of the cameras. Anthony Scaramucci is here to run through Trump's game plan and to respond to his own name being dropped in court today. (COMMERCIAL BREAK) PHILLIP: Donald Trump's allies were out in force today at the courthouse in downtown Manhattan. Speaker of the House, Mike Johnson, making an appearance as well. North Dakota Governor Doug Burgum was there, too, as well as other former -- as well as other former GOP presidential candidates like Vivek Ramaswamy. And they all want you to know one thing about why they're there. Listen. [23:35:00] (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) MIKE JOHNSON, SPEAKER OF THE UNITED STATES HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES: This is a man who is clearly on a mission for personal revenge and who is widely known as a witness who has trouble with the truth. He is someone who has a history of perjury. GOV. DOUG BURGUM (R-ND): The star witness is a serial perjurer. VIVEK RAMASWAMY, PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: You have a guy who has been a perjurer in the past that is now saying he falsified business records. What is the crime that Donald Trump committed? REP. BYRON DONALDS (R-FL): This thing is a farce. We were in there all morning. Michael Cohen basically sat there and said, yeah, he invoiced legal expenses. REP. CORY MILLS (R-FL): Michael Cohen, who has no credibility, who has purged himself multiple times, who has zero integrity, has actually admitted to defrauding the Trump Organization. (END VIDEO CLIP) PHILLIP: All these Republicans doing what Donald Trump can't do, which is attack his witness, Michael Cohen, calling the trial a sham, even attacking one of their favorite targets, the judge's daughter, also covered by the gag order. So, what does Trump think about all of it? (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) DONALD TRUMP, FORMER PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: I do have a lot of surrogates. They are speaking very beautifully. They come from all over Washington. They're highly- respected. they think this is the greatest scam they've ever seen. (END VIDEO CLIP) PHILLIP: I want to bring in Anthony Scaramucci. He's the former Trump White House communications director and author of "From Wall Street to the White House and Back," the founder and managing partner of SkyBridge Capital as well. So, Anthony, I have to give you credit where it's due. Take a look at this picture. You said yesterday when we talked that they were all just mimicking Donald Trump. Today, they showed up actually dressed like him, in the same outfit. I mean, this is really going even far and beyond for the House speaker to show up there as well. ANTHONY SCARAMUCCI, FORMER TRUMP WHITE HOUSE COMMUNICATIONS DIRECTOR: It's not enough, though. I mean, that's the thing. I mean, I just give a message to those guys. I know they watch you. Guys, got to shave your faces. It's not enough. He had a yellow tie on. You guys had red ties. And he always moves the goalposts on people. And so, you think you're going 10 for 10 for Trump. You got to go 13 for 10 for Donald Trump. So, I'm just letting you guys know, you're coming up short for Mr. Trump and there's really nothing you can do about it. There's no way to dress. There are no hand movements. There's really nothing that you're going to do that's going to actually please the guy because he's a bottomless pit. You know, you're going to face the music that everyone else has faced being in his orbit. I think that's the big message. But like I said last night, they're going to mime him because they think that that's a way to pay homage to their leader. And it's a sad thing. And I just want to point out one last thing. These are people that were complaining about Barack Obama not wearing a jacket in the Oval Office, that he undignified the presidency by not wearing a jacket. Now, they're standing outside the courtroom supporting this guy who's an open sewer pipe of lies, corruptions, bad behavior, lack of Christianity, etc. So, I hope somebody gets them to a microphone and ask them to reconcile all that hypocrisy. PHILLIP: Including someone like Doug Burgum, for example, who used to say that he wouldn't associate with someone like Donald Trump. Now, on the way to court today, apparently, Anthony, in the car, Vivek Ramaswamy, Speaker Johnson, was on with Donald Trump, and he was bragging to both of them that he was getting more media coverage from this trial than he would otherwise get on the campaign trail. I guess that might explain why he's not really on the campaign trail all that much. But do you think that that fundamentally is the play here to, don't bother campaigning, just have these stunts outside of the courthouse? SCARAMUCCI: Well, listen, there's some truth to that. Remember, Mr. Trump likes money and he likes attention. Depending on the day, those go from one to two. But the most astonishing thing to me is Doug Burgum because I saw him last fall at Senator Romney's soiree. He gave the breakfast speech making a case to what I would describe as non- MAGA Republicans. And to just see him flip like that and to see him with this like crazy level of sycophancy -- and he's a successful guy. I mean, he doesn't need to be doing this. So again, someone should get to him and just say, hey, what is this all about? I mean, you want to be the vice president of the United States, you were with Governor Romney or Senator Romney last fall. Tim Scott, same thing. So, I can't figure these guys out. Remember, in 2016, we were searching around. [23:40:00] We made a lot of mistakes, myself included. I thought I was a loyal Republican by supporting Donald Trump. But you now have four years of his presidency, and the aftermath of his presidency, what he's doing in his post-presidency, by not conceding, crafting this big election lie, and you guys are all sitting there supporting this. And so, you know, it's like a disgusting thing. I hope, at some point, when the fever breaks, these guys will be like the soldiers in the "Wizard of Oz," Abby. You know, like after the water got thrown on the witch, she melted. I remember what the soldiers did. They like apologized to Dorothy. So, I hope these guys, at some point, when the fever breaks, they look around and say, wow, we really wrecked the Republican Party for this strange, bizarre guy, we're sorry about that, let's go back to rebuilding the country and restoring some type of sanity to this party. PHILLIP: Folks have been waiting for that moment for about eight years now, and it has yet to come. I do want to get to where you came up in the testimony today. Here's the exchange between Todd Blanche and Michael Cohen. Blanche says, you were very much looking in the fall of 2019 for a way to get your sentence reduced, correct? Cohen says, yes, sir. And you had visitors who came to see you, asks Blanche. Cohen says, yes. Do you know someone by the name of Anthony Scaramucci? Cohen says, I do. Blanche, did he come visit you in October 2019? Cohen, he came to visit. I don't know exactly when. Blanche, and he commented and he said you were trying to figure out a way to get out of prison early, right? Cohen, no response. Blanche, you talked to him about that, right? Cohen says, sounds correct. What do you remember about that exchange? Do you think it was relevant even for it to be brought up today? SCARAMUCCI: Yeah. Well, I understand why Blanche did that. It's really not relevant. Listen, you know, when your friends are in trouble, I think it's a very important lesson for everybody, you run towards your friends when they're in trouble, you don't run away from your friends. And so, you know, I grew up in a neighborhood. So, of course, I have visited prisons before. I visited Michael Cohen. And I visited him twice, actually. So, if Mr. Blanche wants to know that, I went to visit him in February of 2019 and then again in October of 2019. I brought the signals and the fives to buy him stuff out of the vending machine. Of course, he wanted his sentence reduced. I had no power to reduce his sentence. We could have talked about that in the two and a half- hour discussion that we had. But there was absolutely no relevancy to the case. I think what he was trying to say is, hey, this guy is a criminal, he's a crafty criminal, he was trying to shorten his sentence. I'll tell you, the person that'll be trying to shorten his sentence is Donald Trump if he gets convicted and actually would have to go to jail over something like this. And so, you know, the question is, who's going to visit Trump when he's in jail? I guess these guys outside, you know, I don't know what they'll be wearing. I mean, I guess they can go in orange or something like that when they visit Trump if he ends up going to jail. But I think it's important for people to understand that Michael Cohen is a redeemed guy, Abby. He has gone through the gauntlet. He came with the receipts the last two days to explain the facts of the case, and I think the jury knows that. PHILLIP: All right. Anthony Scaramucci, good to see you. Thanks for joining us. SCARAMUCCI: Good to be here. PHILLIP: And our panel is back with us here in the studio along with Shermichael Singleton and Alencia Johnson. So, I mean, Alencia, Trump is basically expecting the public to ignore this case. And the truth is they might be ignoring this case. So, is he ultimately winning that messaging war? ALENCIA JOHNSON, FORMER SENIOR ADVISOR FOR THE BIDEN 2020 CAMPAIGN: Well, I don't know if he's necessarily winning. But to your point of ignoring the case, let me take off my Democratic strategist hat and put on a media professional hat. People love scandal and chaos, and they aren't seeing this because, quite frankly, we're talking about what's happening in the courtroom versus them seeing what's actually happening in the courtroom. And I don't think that's persuading a lot of voters who are on the fence. Now, I will say, I do think conviction, of course, will persuade voters. But, you know, for him to be what we thought would be him sitting slumped over in the courtroom, that contrast, we saw that a week ago. I think folks have kind of moved on. They want something else. And so, it will be interesting to see how Democrats try to push through the noise in order to get our message across but, you know, his tactics have, or lack thereof, have actually helped him. And now, he's got his, I guess, Avengers, we could call them, the Republican Avengers, I don't know what that picture was, but he's got an army behind him bringing even more attention there. So, it's interesting that he is becoming this entertainment. [23:45:00] PHILLIP: Yeah. This kind of reminds me of, you know, in the early days of the Trump presidency, in the intermediary period between the election and when he was inaugurated. He would have people just go to Bedminster and stand outside of Bedminster as if it was the White House just to parade people, just to humiliate them. He did it with Mitt Romney. And ultimately, it is about actually getting people to be bowing down in front of him in public. Most of these guys are not going to be his VP, but he wants to see them there as a part of a self-flagellation. COATES: That's why Liz Cheney's statement -- I want to read it for everyone. Liz Cheney was talking about that very point that Abby is raising and saying, I have to admit, I'm surprised that Speaker Johnson wants to be in the "I cheated on my wife with a porn star" club. I guess he's not that concerned with teaching morality to our young people after all. SHERMICHAEL SINGLETON, CNN CONTRIBUTOR: I mean, was she concerned about her father teaching morality when we slaughtered a lot of people in a war that they said there was evidence for and there was not? I mean, Liz Cheney does not have the moral high ground on this. And to be quite honest with you, for a lot of Republicans -- (CROSSTALK) PHILLIP: She did have the person who is not her father. SINGLETON: I know that, but the point that I'm making here is, for a lot of Republican voters, she is irrelevant. Now, to the question about -- COATES: Isn't that telling? SINGLETON: Well, it is very telling, but the point, though, is that these guys going out there defending Donald Trump, it's not just because of Donald Trump's vanity. It also showcases, in my view, that the Republican Party is still behind Donald Trump, solidly behind Donald Trump. It also suggests that while Donald Trump can articulate what he believes his political position should be about this case, there are other elected Republican officials who can, and Republican voters want to hear that. And I think sort of making the case against Michael Cohen, I think, is somewhat effective. COATES: You know, Abby, it's interesting to think about this connection, as you're pointing out, the idea of who is there and what they're not doing, actually, to be in that courtroom. I mean, it's kind of the field of dreams. If you build it, it will come. They didn't mean a courtroom. PHILLIP: Gene -- ROSSI: Yeah. PHILLIP: -- the idea that these folks are going out there and attacking the judge's daughter, something very clearly covered under the gag order, and also very gratuitous, too, not to mention. I mean, look, the judge probably can't do anything about it, but they're trying to make a mockery of the court, it seems. ROSSI: I will give a quick answer because somebody told me to. If they can prove that Donald Trump helped guide them, direct them, advise them to make those statements, then he did violate the gag order. But if that's absent, then they can go out there and say whatever they want. PHILLIP: That's interesting. COATES: A very important point. Thank you, everyone. Up next, we have a lot more coverage of Michael Cohen's cross- examination today, a deep dive into the transcripts of some of the most dramatic moments in just a moment. And we'll show you the winning dog, by the way, at the Westminster Kettle Club Dog Show. No correlation between the two points. (COMMERCIAL BREAK) [23:52:00] COATES: Well, you know, big innovations are happening in the way we do business. Most of those innovators work behind the scenes. But with "Champions for Change," we are telling their stories. And tonight, we're looking at the wine industry, long dominated by white men. But an enterprising winemaker is on a mission to blend diversity into the business. (BEGIN VIDEOTAPE) DONAE BURSTON, FOUNDER, LA FETE WINE COMPANY: Travel and wine are so synonymous with each other. As more African-American consumers begin to see the world and have these great experiences, wine is becoming much more of a pinpoint or a passion point for their lives. UNKNOWN: The age of the old white man drinking wine is over. If we don't start to make this industry look the way the world looks, it's not going to go much further. BURSTON: There's a barrier in wine that goes beyond just what's in the bottle. There's a communication disconnect. There's a lapse in the two entities knowing how to speak to each other, being the Black community and the wine industry. I launched a brand with the intention to really just diversify the wine industry. We believe we are the connector. LA FETE Wine Company now is the number one imported luxury French wine company from the south of France. So, I started in the business in 2001-2002. I was always one of only one in the room from a Black person's standpoint, a Black male in particular. It's super rare to find Black-owned wine companies in the U.S. There's less than one percent. How do we help be a steward for just changing every aspect from the wine industry and bringing more people of color and especially more Black Americans into this trillion-dollar industry? After the post-George Floyd movement and we saw a lot of racial injustice in the world, I was made aware of The Roots Fund. And for me, they shared a mission that we had or I had, which was how do we make the industry more diverse? UNKNOWN: I appreciate all of you for coming tonight and supporting our organization. IKIMI DUBOSE-WOODSON, CO-FOUNDER, THE ROOTS FUND: The Roots Fund is creating a way for people of color to get the education, to get the mentorship, so that they are ready to be out working and then to get a career in this business. BURSTON: As part of our participation in The Roots Fund, we are huge supporters of The Rooted in France initiative. My winery and wines are in France, and I know the beauty of the old world. To hear that they were wanting to send students to Burgundy and to work in this historic winemaking region and have that experience, it was important to be able to foster for minorities or especially Black kids who wanted to learn more about wine, to give them that cultural experience of France while also giving them the experience of working in the wine industry. VANESSA CHARLOT, ROOTED IN FRANCE SCHOLAR: A lot of people think I'm over there just tasting wine and frolicking through the vineyards. You're doing accounting, logistics, supply chain, marketing, things of that nature with wine and spirits-based case studies. UNKNOWN (voice-over): Vanessa is truly unique, will be our first scholar in the Rooted in France program that is an entrepreneur, who is building her own business. CHARLOT: Donae, the Roots Fund, they're giving opportunities in terms of employment, internships, mentorship, a network, a community. [23:55:00] BURSTON: For me, to see these kids come back and then further themselves to now go work in wine, is amazing. DUBOSE-WOODSON: Donae is consistently standing on business, as they say. He is always looking for ways to be innovative every year. He's probably the first phone call that I get to figure out how can we elevate, how can we amplify, what else can we do in HBCU communities to get more of these business students into this business? BURSTON: From day one, it has been our goal to disrupt the industry and take down the big boys. And when you have that sort of mission in place, you recognize the underdogs and you want to give opportunities to the underdogs. And we will forever foster those programs and initiatives that give a voice and a platform to those that are not expected to succeed. (END VIDEOTAPE) COATES: Well, be sure to tune in Saturday at 9 p.m. Eastern for the "Champions for Change" one hour special. All right, everyone, before we go tonight, I want to put your hands together for a black miniature poodle named Sage. Just moments ago, the three-year-old won "Best in Show" at the Westminster Kennel Club Dog Show. Sage is the 11th poodle, by the way, to win "Best in Show," in the show's 148-year history. And now, I'm going to go home and watch the show, the movie, best in show. Thank you all for watching our coverage of Michael Cohen's testimony. The Trump hush money trial continues now with "Anderson Cooper 360." (COMMERCIAL BREAK)