Anderson Cooper 360 Degrees Aired May 16, 2024 - 20:00 ET THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED. [20:00:00] … ANDERSON COOPER, CNN HOST: Good evening. On what was a blockbuster day in the criminal hush money trial of the former president, blockbuster because after what has at times been a meandering cross-examination of the prosecution's most important witness, Michael Cohen. Today Trump attorney, Todd Blanche was able to repeatedly raise questions about Cohen's honesty, not just in the past, but his honesty in his testimony before this jury this week. I was in the courtroom this morning just before the lunch break. Blanche presented text messages to Cohen between him and former Trump bodyguard Keith Schiller. The messages were from October 24th 2016, and they appeared to contradict testimony Cohen gave Monday on direct examination that goes to the heart of the alleged scheme to falsify business records. Earlier in the week, Cohen testified about texting Schiller. He said under oath that he needed to talk to Trump urgently, and Schiller was always by his side. He testified that he used Schiller's phone to speak to the former president. Cohen told the jury in his earlier testimony that the purpose of the call was, quote, "To discuss the Stormy Daniels matter and the resolution of it." But today Todd Blanche did something the prosecutors had apparently not done, or at least not discussed with Michael Cohen in their questioning of him on the witness stand. Blanche read previous text messages Cohen had received shortly before he texted Schiller. They showed that Cohen was responding to a 14- year-old crank caller who'd been pranking him by phone for days. Cohen texted Schiller informing him about the prank call and wanting help from Schiller about the calls and that appears is why he then called Schiller. Blanche appeared to have trapped Cohen, arguing that the subsequent call between him and Schiller lasted only 96 seconds, and questioned whether, and this quote comes to us from our reporters in the room, "You had enough time to update Schiller about all the problems you were having and also update President Trump about the status of the Stormy Daniels situation." It's important to remember that Cohen had never mentioned this 14- year-old crank caller in testimony. Blanche directly stated that he lied under oath earlier this week about speaking with then-candidate Trump on that day. It was a major moment on a day that saw several other notable developments, including that sources tell CNN the defense may call a former attorney for Cohen, Robert Costello, to continue the defense argument that the one-time fixer for the former president is a liar. However, the judge also suggested summations could begin next week. There's a lot to talk about with our panel. Joining us is Robert Ray, former president's counsel during his first impeachment trial, former federal prosecutor Jeffrey Toobin, CNN anchor Abby Phillip, also three more who witnessed that pivotal moment in the courtroom today, CNN's Anchor Kaitlan Collins went after the lunch break, Norm Eisen, who was the counsel for the House Democrats during the first impeachment, was there this morning, and correspondent Kara Scannell. Kara, what - was that moment the one that stood out to you? KARA SCANNELL, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Oh, by far, absolutely. I mean, it was the big moment of the day. And the way that Todd Blanche did it, he spent a lot of the morning on these inconsistent statements, drawing out when Michael Cohen may have lied. And then he gets to this phone call, and he begins by saying, you spoke with the former - you testified on Monday you spoke with Trump on the 24th. Cohen says, yes. And he says, do you remember, was it on speakerphone or did Schiller hand the phone. Cohen's like, oh, I don't remember. So he's setting it up in such a way that you think you're going back to this and then he says, and what about these text messages. And then goes exactly as you just described, just confronting Cohen with these text messages and the timestamps that were so close and that showed Keith Schiller saying to him, Cohen's complaining about this 14-year- old calling him, Schiller says at 8:02, call me. Cohen calls him at 8:02, it's a 96-second phone call. And Cohen then says, well - and Blanche is just building to this crescendo. He is focusing in on this on Cohen. And he's like, admit it, you lied, you made up this call. And Cohen says, I'm not sure that's accurate. Later on, he tried to correct that a bit and said that the reason why he remembered this specifically was because this was, as he put it, so important, such a critical thing and so he had it in his memory. He's been telling the story for six years. I'm not sure that that did the job though. COOPER: Norm, I mean, did you believe Michael Cohen in what his response to this was? Because his response basically evolved into, well, I was doing both. When he was cornered, he could have basically either said, you know what, I misremembered this, which would have been devastating. Or what he did, which was, I did both. I both talked to Keith Schiller about this 14-year-old boy who I want to get vengeance against, which was bizarre enough. [20:05:06] And I had time to tell President Trump this crucial piece of information, which is I'm going ahead with the Stormy deal and Trump agreed. NORM EISEN, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: There was a ferocious debate in the courtroom between the people who thought it was a true "Perry Mason" moment. And some in my row who said, eh. COOPER: Really? EISEN: Yes. George, our friend George Conway (ph). COOPER: Mm-hmm. EISEN: He said what is everybody getting so exercised about? (CROSSTALK) EISEN: I will tell you ... (CROSSTALK) EISEN: I will tell you ... (CROSSTALK) EISEN: I think the same debate is erupting is in our row. ROBERT RAY, TRUMP COUNSEL IN FIRST IMPEACHMENT TRIAL: I can't imagine for a moment that (INAUDIBLE) concluded anything else. EISEN: I was sitting just in front of Anderson. COOPER: I know. I wanted to grab you and be like, oh my god, Norm, are you hearing this? EISEN: We had a quick conversation about it. It was a good moment of cross. It was a very professional and powerful moment of cross. I think if Cohen had been shown those texts by the prosecution on the direct examination, if they had refreshed his recollection, there's nothing implausible about discussing both ... COOPER: But that's what seems like ... UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Good point. COOPER: No, I get that. EISEN: ... discussing both subjects. COOPER: It seems like a huge mistake by prosecutors, it ... EISEN: It was not the best; it was not their finest. COOPER: I mean, do they not know - did they not look at what the text messages were (INAUDIBLE) ... (CROSSTALK) EISEN: It was not their finest moment. I - my experience has been, it wasn't - it was a blow on the chin - but my experience, 30 years of doing this is that it takes more than one punch to knock out a witness. This is a witness that the jury had believed. COOPER: But that - okay. EISEN: I was watching the jury at the time. I did not think it was a knockout blow. COOPER: But here's the thing, if I'm a juror, and again, it's impossible to ... KAITLAN COLLINS, CNN ANCHOR: You were in there. COOPER: ... it's impossible to read these jurors, but if I'm a juror and I've heard, and I've been warned that Michael Cohen lies. The prosecutors have said this. They've set it up. I'm prepared for that. I'm prepared for he's lied in the past repeatedly. I don't know if the juror is prepared for he lied to this jury two days ago, but now he's really telling the truth. I mean, I don't know. Does that - does a juror make a difference between, oh yes, those were his old lies, but he's really now telling the truth. EISEN: Jurors understand. And he cleaned this up in the afternoon. SCANNELL: He tried to. He tried. EISEN: He was stronger after lunch. Memory is not perfect, okay? People do not have perfect recollections ... COOPER: Okay, but ... EISEN: ... and we're going to get redirect ... (CROSSTALK) RAY: It works for almost all witnesses except for an inveterate liar. COOPER: So - but let me just argue one ... RAY: That's a really hard argument to make. COOPER: Just one, let me just argue one other thing because - before I - it's going to leave my mind, which is if this phone call, if his testimony previously was, it was so urgent that I talked to Trump because I got to check in with the boss on everything I do, and I'm going forward with the Stormy Daniels payment, and he's got to approve it. So I'm calling him now, it's going to be a quick phone call. I call Keith Schiller because I want to talk to the boss. If that was so urgent and in his mind, why is he obsessing about a 14- year-old boy who's allegedly prank calling him and contacting Keith Schiller saying, I got to talk to you about this weird phone number that shows up. It's not, I got to talk to the boss or something really urgent. And calling Keith Schiller and talking to the boss and then after that conversation is over saying to Schiller, oh, by the way, there's this phone number. It's not - it seems like the 14-year-old boy is the reason he's calling. COLLINS: What they're - I mean, you just basically made the defense's case for them. Memories are not perfect. That is exactly what they're saying to Michael Cohen, that your memory is not perfect and you don't remember exactly that you even spoke to Donald Trump on this phone call. I mean, his most devastating line after the text with the 14- year-old was, I believe I spoke with Mr. Trump. He didn't even double down on it after he was pressed on it. And so that is exactly their entire case here that they've been saying, Michael Cohen, how can you not remember this, but then you remember this phone call with Donald Trump so specifically. RAY: The best part of cross-examination was Todd Blanche's follow-up, which was, the jury is not interested in what you believe. The jury ... COOPER: Mm-hmm, which he got objected on. RAY: Doesn't matter. COOPER: And sustained. RAY: It doesn't matter. EISEN: Then he ... RAY: And those are - that's the kind of comment that you make. You don't care whether that objection is sustained. COOPER: Right. RAY: You're communicating to the jury. COOPER: And he said that looking at the jurors by way. RAY: Absolutely. COOPER: Yes. RAY: Absolutely. ABBY PHILLIP, CNN ANCHOR: I - as Kaitlan said, look, I think the issue with Michael Cohen is that particularly when you have animus toward another person, which they have demonstrated pretty clearly, it is also plausible for the jury to believe that your memory is colored by your desire to see Donald Trump behind bars. And that's why this moment, I think, is so devastating because he is so crystal clear on everything that is bad for Donald Trump's case, but on everything - from the mundane to other things that apparently, at the time, he was really worked up about, he cannot remember it. [20:10:01] And that is both a problem from the case's perspective, but I just think in general for Michael Cohen, this is the issue with him, is that you cannot always be sure. Yes, he's been telling the story for six years, but in those six years, he's been trying to get Donald Trump convicted of crimes. COOPER: It was also fascinating in the courtroom today because I had not - I must admit - I have not listened to Michael Cohen's podcast, Mea Culpa. But it was played - shocking - but it was played - a moment of it was played in the courtroom today. And it was so fascinating because, Michael Cohen's testimony has been very even keel. RAY: (INAUDIBLE) demeanor. COOPER: very rational, very - yes, ma'am; no, sir, all this. And suddenly they play this thing, and there's a guy screaming in the room, like, using expletives. PHILLIP: Is this the rap songs? COLLINS: No, it's just normal ... SCANNELL: No. (CROSSTALK) COOPER: No, which is, I - well, first of all I would ... (CROSSTALK) COOPER: ... as somebody who does a podcast. I was like, is this his actual normal speaking voice in a podcast, because it's literally yelling and it's clearly written down, because he's speaking in a way that's not - so he's written down these yells, like it's got to be all in caps. I mean, it was shocking. I was like, it (INAUDIBLE) ... SCANNELL: Between that, just the volume of him and compared with his very calm demeanor ... COOPER: Yes. SCANNELL: ... that was - I also was like, whoa. COOPER: I mean, it filled the court. I don't know if somebody turned up the volume too loud. I was like, did they - is this intentionally too loud? Oh, wait, I'm told we have a clip of the podcast. Let's play it, and play it loud, 'cause it was quite loud in the courtroom, I got to tell you. Let's hear it. RAY: (INAUDIBLE) volume. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) MICHAEL COHEN, MEA CULPA PODCAST: I truly (expletive) hope that this man ends up in prison. It won't bring back the year that I lost or the damage done to my family. But revenge is a dish best served cold and you better believe I want this man to go down and rot inside for what he did to me and my family. (END VIDEO CLIP) COOPER: Oh, yes, that's what was played. JEFFREY TOOBIN, CNN CHIEF LEGAL ANALYST: Think he's a little biased? I don't know. COOPER: Well, I think ... TOOBIN: But there's, I think, a fundamental question about, Michael Cohen as a witness, which is, is the jury going to listen to him and the cross and the history of lying and say, the hell with this guy. I mean, just write him off. Or are they going to say, look, he's had this traumatic experience, he went to prison because he thought he was helping Donald Trump. Let's parse each statement and see whether those statements are corroborated. And this is really, I think, the prosecution's great hope, and this is why they examined him the way they did on direct, which was scaffolding his testimony with text messages, phone records. Now, the big problem with today is those text messages came back to bite him, at least in this one exchange. But it is also worth mentioning that, he had years of contact with Donald Trump. It's not in debate that whether he could - whether he was in touch with him ... COOPER: Right. TOOBIN: ... if he's mistaken about this one phone call, one prosecution response is, so what? COLLINS: No, no, no, but ... TOOBIN: He was in touch for 10 years. COLLINS: But it's not just this one phone call. And one, you also have to remember there are two attorneys on this jury who were listening to Michael Cohen admit that he agrees it's unethical for an attorney to record their client. They're listening to that. Todd Blanche is trying to catch him in other inconsistencies. He seems like he's about to catch him in another lie on Monday. This is something I'm watching, because he asked him about recording conversations with reporters, which Michael Cohen said he did pretty often. But he said he stopped after the 2016 campaign. And then Todd Blanche pressed him on that. He said, I would have to check. And Todd Blanche responded with this knowing tone, well, we'll check together in a minute. So it seems like he's just catching with that, maybe it doesn't change the actual documents, but it could really undermine the credibility we have. TOOBIN: But Kaitlan, this is a controversial view, but attorneys are also human beings, and they understand that sometimes people do stupid things, sometimes people say things when they're angry and they hold grudges. That doesn't mean every word they say is a lie. And that's the challenge for the prosecutors to say, look, we know he lied and they brought out a lot of that on direct. Unfortunately for them, not everything. I mean, they certainly should have brought out this whole thing about the 14-year-old. But this wasn't a total surprise to the jury, I suspect. Obviously, I don't know. EISEN: And that's why this case, from day one, starting with David Pecker and the August 2015 meeting in Trump Tower, where you have Pecker agreeing that there is going to be this activity, this catch- and-kill activity to benefit the campaign. And going all throughout the testimony with those corroborating notes in Allen Weisselberg's hand, there - this is one tile in a mosaic and even today, Cohen was much stronger in the afternoon, and the jury does not necessarily fixate on that one moment. [20:15:00] COOPER: Well, it was also interesting because all - during the - I mean, for - until the exciting end, right before the lunch break, I kept sitting there wondering, well, all Todd Blanche is talking about is just lies by Michael Cohen about things in general, not anything to do with a document that was signed about Stormy Daniels or anything to do with Stormy Daniels or anything to do with hush money payments. And I - and to me, it felt very meandering, and I was like, okay, yes, we know the guy has lied a lot, and that's kind of big (INAUDIBLE) ... PHILLIP: I just think ... RAY: Except for one thing and that's another blockbuster area of this testimony, which I think is extraordinary. It doesn't seem to be something many people have picked up on, and that is the following: it is an extraordinary thing, in my experience, for a cooperating witness to take the stand and admit under oath at a trial that they pleaded guilty to something that they didn't commit. In other words, perjuring themselves at the time of the plea allocution. Now, look, I know there's all kinds of stuff here about replaying the - how many times can he be untruthful, and how many times is he untruthful under oath. But I have to tell you, I mean, at least as I learned being a prosecutor, if you have a cooperating witness that can't tell the truth at a plea allocution, that means that that witness is basically worthless. COOPER: He testified he lied to the judge, right, in this prior case, and ... RAY: Denying that his plea was voluntary. COOPER: And then when he was - when Todd Blanche asked him, well, what do you think the judge would have thought of you? Don't you think the judge would like to have known you were lying? I mean, don't you think that would have impacted his decision? RAY: And it would have, because ... COOPER: And Michael Cohen was like, I don't know. COLLINS: He said the judge was in on it. RAY: (INAUDIBLE) ... COLLINS: He said the assistant U.S. attorneys and the judge were in on it. RAY: That's just nuts. I mean, and that that's why ... COLLINS: That's a pretty ... RAY: ... and the Todd Blanche's cross-examination, so basically, whenever you get into a problem, it's always blame somebody else. Blame President Trump, blame the judge, blame the Justice Department, blame the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York, blame Congress. I mean, how many places do you have to go where this guy has lied many times under oath, and it's always somebody else's fault, it's not his fault? I mean, I got to tell you, in summation, that's pretty powerful evidence to a jury to say you shouldn't believe anything this guy says. And if you have to rely on his testimony in any fashion whatsoever in order to convict Donald Trump, i.e., in order to fix Donald Trump's intent, you have a reasonable doubt. You can't have anything else but a reasonable doubt. EISEN: And yet in that moment, when Blanche tried to push him and said, so you're not accepting responsibility. He said, I do accept responsibility. He stood up to Blanche. RAY: For the facts, but he doesn't accept responsibility, Norm, for the most important thing, which is ... EISEN: His answer ... RAY: He's saying that he didn't plead guilty to a crime and coincidentally ... EISEN: That's not what he's saying, no. He's said on direct ... COOPER: His words say that he accepts responsibility. EISEN: He was strong in pushing back on Blanche here. COOPER: But the meaning - his actually thoughts don't seem to accept responsibility. EISEN: There you go. COOPER: But he uses the phrase I accept full responsibility, constantly. RAY: And there can't be any daylight there, because if there is daylight, that is a huge problem for the prosecution. COOPER: We got to get a break in. We're going to have a lot more. Kara Scannell, thank you so much as always. Everyone else is going to stay here. Still to come, we just received the image the defense used of that text Cohen sent to Schiller about the crank caller. We'll show you that. Plus, John Berman is going through today's transcripts. (COMMERCIAL BREAK) [20:22:05] COOPER: A short time ago, we received images of that text exchange between Michael Cohen and then-candidate Trump's bodyguard Keith Schiller that the defense attorney showed today. Again, it was to prove their assertion that Cohen did not ask to speak to Trump about Stormy Daniels as he testified earlier in the week, but he wanted to talk to the bodyguard, actually, to Keith Schiller about a crank call or a series of crank calls. This is the key moment, quoting Cohen's text: "Who can I speak to regarding harassing calls to my cell and office? The dope forgot to block his call on one of them." The call was - these calls were allegedly by a 14-year-old. After that, Keith Schiller texts Michael Cohen, saying, "Call me." And shortly after, minutes - seconds later, there's a call from Michael Cohen to Keith Schiller, which he had previously testified was a call to get to Trump to tell him important news that he was moving ahead on the payments to Stormy Daniels, and he claimed that Trump had agreed. We're joined now by John Berman, who has more on this moment. Although the full text of this cross-examination that so - that was so momentous is not out. JOHN BERMAN, CNN ANCHOR: We have almost all of today's transcript except this part, as you can imagine, which is very frustrating. But Anderson, you did a great job explaining it based on what you and others have reported from inside the courtroom. Look, he - Todd Blanche went after Michael Cohen on this. Michael Cohen basically said, "I know that Keith was with Mr. Trump at the time and there was more potentially than this." In other words more potentially than me just talking to Keith about the kid. Maybe I talked to him about something else. Then he said, "I always ran everything by the boss immediately, and in this case, it would have been saying everything's been taken care of. It's been resolved." And then he ultimately had to admit it, because based on what was going on, based on the text message and so on, based on the other text messages about the Stormy Daniels matter, that is how we came to the conclusion that he talked to Trump about Stormy Daniels on this phone call. It was all the other things. Blanche challenged Cohen to confirm that his trial testimony was based on materials prosecutors showed him in preparation from questioning. COOPER: Right. This was an important moment because then Blanche is saying, Well, wait a minute, so you're only testifying to this phone call because prosecutors showed you a call log that had this phone call, and you're claiming that that basically jarred your memory ... RAY: This is the setup. COOPER: ... of this crucial phone call ... RAY: This is the setup to the cross-examination to follow. BERMAN: And he said, yes, that refreshed my recollection. COOPER: Right. BERMAN: Well, we do have - just so people know ... COOPER: But it didn't refresh his recollection of the 14-year-old caller. TOOBIN: Can I ask you a question? What is the ultimate significance of - let's assume he just lied about all this - but does this mean that Donald Trump didn't know that he was reimbursing - what is ... COOPER: No, but it's that he is claiming this was one of the examples. This was a key moment when he directly told Donald Trump, I'm going ahead with these payments, and Trump approved it. RAY: And he (INAUDIBLE) do it. [20:25:01] TOOBIN: Okay. But we have abundant proof, including Trump's own words in a tweet ... COOPER: Right. TOOBIN: In a financial disclosure firm from the White House, where he says, I reimbursed Michael Cohen for the - so ... EISEN: And ... TOOBIN: ... why is that in dispute? EISEN: And you have additional communication the next day with Cohen, Davidson, Howard, and Pecker. And then you have two direct calls on the 26th at 8:26 AM and 8:34 AM to Trump. BERMAN: And that was when he was making the transfer. I actually had the transcript of that call. Two days later where Cohen was asked, "Did you call Mr. Trump before you went up to set up the account to make the transfer?" He goes, "Yes." "What in substance did you discuss with him on these two calls?" Cohen said, in direct, "I wanted to ensure, once again, he approved of what I was doing because I needed approval from him on all of this." COOPER: By the way, I should also point out earlier that morning, I guess before that, he texted Keith Schiller back, pursuing the family of the 14-year-old phone caller. He seems very obsessed on this phone call. COLLINS: He was saying, please don't do this. I'm 14 years old. COOPER: Yes, this ... COLLINS: So that was when - that morning - that moment happened and then they went to break, which is a great moment for the defense to end on, obviously. Then they come back in the room, and Todd Blanche greeted Michael Cohen when he was at the witness stand. His voice was barely audible. COOPER: Michael Cohen's? COLLINS: He just - he said, "Good afternoon, Mr. Cohen." And Michael Cohen responded, "Mr. Blanche." But you could barely hear it in the courtroom and obviously, he's speaking into a microphone. And then the text had not been redacted when you were still in the courtroom. So, I don't believe they showed them on the screen. COOPER: Right. COLLINS: They redacted what they needed to during the lunch break. So, then they put them up on the screen and made Michael Cohen read what he was texting this 14-year-old that, when the kid said he was 14, allegedly, Michael Cohen responded, well, you need to tell your parent or guardian that the Secret Service is now responsible for handling this. COOPER: Right. COLLINS: And it just kind of - it was this moment where the jury doesn't often show a lot, and they clearly were kind of experiencing the same ... COOPER: Right. COLLINS: ... had the same look that you had when you came out. COOPER: Right. Yeah, it was bizarre. But the ... RAY: Well, and ... COOPER: ... yes. RAY: ... and for obvious reasons, I mean, let's not forget, this is from 2016. We're in 2024. This is eight years ago. Now, refreshing somebody's recollection with a text message - well, do you really remember that this is what happened? I mean, that's the whole point of their cross-examination. You basically testifying here because the prosecution showed you a bunch of documents and stuff, and you're telling us what you remember. TOOBIN: What about ... RAY: And if you hadn't been shown those documents, you wouldn't have been able to tell them anything about anything. TOOBIN: But what about Norm's point that it wasn't just this one phone call, it was a whole series of phone calls right around this time, at exactly the time he is transferring the money. Is that all made up too? RAY: No. No. EISEN: And the testimony that Cohen put in, in his direct, about this call, was very general testimony. He was not purporting to remember exactly what was said back and forth. I think in the - I understand the mental excitement of that moment of confrontation. But I think in the larger scheme of things, this gigantic mosaic that corroborates Michael Cohen, the lack of any other explanation for what Trump was doing, the later corroborating statement, the long series of witnesses, the many documents, I don't believe the jury is going to seize on it. If you had one, two, three, four knockout punches, yes, you would have laid Cohen flat. This was just one. It comes out of the (INAUDIBLE) ... PHILLIP: Here's my thing about where - about this statement, and also just - about Michael Cohen in general: there's abundant evidence that Donald Trump knew about the hush money payments, but that is not the issue here. The issue is the falsification of business records, and from my understanding of the evidence, there's really one key moment where Michael Cohen basically makes the case that Donald Trump understood that it was going to be fraudulently put on the books as legal fees. And that was a meeting that he had with Allen Weisselberg and Donald Trump. They're only three people who know what goes on there. One of them is the defendant, the other one is not going to testify, and the other one is Michael Cohen. And so, if I'm a defense lawyer ... RAY: Unless you believe Michael Cohen with regard to that evidence and the defense is going to make the argument in summation, his testimony is worthless and these are the examples, and you - he's trying to gild the lily and he's testifying and making it up. Unless you can believe beyond a reasonable doubt that that conversation happened and there's proof of it ... PHILLIP: And that it happened the way that Michael Cohen said ... RAY: ... and the way he said, right. PHILLIP: ... it happened because it's really crucial. RAY: Because it's only that way which would prove Donald Trump's intent. There's no way that a jury should convict on that evidence unanimously beyond a reasonable doubt. That's going to be the argument. PHILLIP: That - and that is why the doubt that is put on the table by Michael Cohen's recollection of a conversation that he describes as being pivotal is, look, I mean, the bar is so low for the defense to just say - to convince one juror that there is not enough evidence. [20:30:10] I'm not saying that the preponderance of evidence is that Donald Trump knew what was going on, and that there is a common sense view that one could have that he understood that this was not going to be put on the books correctly. But in this court, it takes much less than that to get a juror to say, I don't know if I can believe this guy about this one really critical conversation that has to do with how the records, how the payments were structured so that the records could be falsified. That's the main problem, I think right now for the prosecution. COOPER: We'll have more transcripts later. John Berman, thanks so much. Coming up, how the jury may view a potential witness for the defense who testified before Congress yesterday, disputing Michael Cohen's own sworn testimony in the hush money trial, that's ahead. (COMMERCIAL BREAK) COOPER: As we've been discussing Michael Cohen's credibility came under attack today is from Defense Attorney Todd Blanche grilled him over key text messages and a phone call on October 2016. While the prosecution would like to present Cohen as a reformed liar, there are new questions already raised today about some of the testimony he gave in this trial earlier this week. [20:35:14] This also includes Cohen's testimony on Tuesday when he claimed that he was given advice by Attorney Robert Costello in 2018. And that Costello was using his connections to Rudy Giuliani, and by extension, former President Trump to pressure Cohen, not to flip. On Wednesday, Costello appeared before the House Subcommittee on the so called weaponization of the federal government to dispute that. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) ROBERT COSTELLO, PARTNER, DAVIDOFF HUTCHER & CITRON: The story he told yesterday was that Rudy Giuliani and I were somehow conspiring to try and keep him quiet, to try and keep him from flipping. That's the term we use in the trade for cooperating. That's ridiculous. I asked for a meeting with District Attorney Bragg, because I wanted to go in there, let them look me in the eye. And let me explain all of the stuff that we had on Michael Cohen that showed that he's an inveterate liar. (END VIDEO CLIP) COOPER: A source famil -- TOOBIN: That's amazing. This is a guy -- he was representing him and he's calling his client an inveterate liar. And -- COOPER: To which he actually technically representing him, I mean -- NORMAN EISEN, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: Pretty -- TOOBIN: That's what I -- that's certainly what I thought -- EISEN: The Costello e-mails are like a witness. COOPER: By the way, the defense may call him now. EISEN: Yes. COOPER: Although, is it weird, I mean isn't it weird that they had this testimony to get this testimony out there. RAY: Apparently, the privilege was waived. I don't know exactly how that happened. That's what I understand. EISEN: It would be pretty unusual to call a witness to impeach another witness on cross examination. We'll see if the judge allows it. But Costello, if he comes, his e-mails to Cohen are the most extraordinary. It's like a cookbook for witness tampering. COLLINS: No. It's like the sopranos -- EISEN: It's exactly like the sopranos. COOPER: By the way, I forgot to introduce Renato Stabile, jury and trial consultant. (CROSSTALK) COOPER: Renato, what to you, what do you think of today? RENATO STABILE, JURY CONSULTANT: Look, I mean, he got up -- Michael Cohen got absolutely hammered today. But he's a liar is not a theory of defense. We still don't know what is the theory of defense? You know, they opened as I've said that these were legitimate legal fees. There's been no evidence of that. Michael Cohen is sticking to the story that I did no legal work them. So hammering Michael Cohen and saying he's a liar. I think the jury thinks, you know, he is a liar. Maybe they have questions about some of these phone calls. But there's other corroborating evidence. And I still don't understand what the theory is. And we all know you have to have a theory of defense, if you want to win a criminal case. COOPER: Well, that was, Jeffrey, your argument all along, which is, OK, the prosecution has put forth a set of, you know, facts, believe them or not. What is the defense argument? TOOBIN: Exactly, and there are certain undisputed facts in this case, the two most important of which are Michael Cohen, paid Stormy Daniels, $130,000. No one is going to dispute that. The other thing -- the undisputed fact is that Donald Trump paid Michael Cohen $420,000. Is there any explanation in front of the jury, other than this was a reimbursement for what -- for what he paid out. Now, that means that the documents are false. That means that the corporate documents are false. The issue in the case is did Donald Trump know or cause those documents to be false? That to me is the only disputed issue in this case, because the rest of it is just proof. COLLINS: And, Jeffrey, you know, the other point of that that was raised today and it'll be fascinating to see how the prosecution handles this is Todd Blanche grilled Michael Cohen on what he testified recently was that, you know, in the -- in 2017, 2018, he was barely doing any legal work for the Trump family. But he had -- he never had a retainer. Well, Todd Blanche, went back and said, OK, ever since you worked at the Trump Organization, when he left his law firm, the day he met Trump and went to try to get a job there, he never had a retainer. Michael Cohen said that was correct. And Todd Blanche was trying to make the point where you've never had a retainer. So it's not unusual that you didn't have one in 2017 and 2018. But then the question that I had sitting in there in the courtroom was, well, when Michael Cohen sent those invoices to Allen Weisselberg, they were paid pursuant to a legal retainer, it said it on every check. We looked at all 11 of them. And so the question I would have for the defense there is, OK, well, then why was he being paid pursuant to a retainer if he's never had a retainer. TOOBIN: Because there was no retainer, because it's a lie. It was a fake. (CROSSTALK) RAY: That wasn't the issue. The issue is whether there's a written retainer agreement, not whether or not there's -- that he's been retained. COLLINS: No. He said, he's never had a retainer, period. RAY: No, no, no, no. COLLINS: I was there. Todd Blanche drilled down a couple of times today. RAY: But what he means by that is there was no written retainer agreement. EISEN: But here's the answer to -- RAY: It's clear that he didn't, it wasn't retained by Trump to his lawyer. [20:40:01] STABILE: But I think the retainer issue that's kind of a sideshow. RAY: Sure. STABILE: It's not like that big a deal really, you know, in the legal field whether or not you have retainer or gag you should have. But what legal -- I think the defense painted themselves into a corner, what did he do? And what did Donald Trump think that he was writing those $35,000 checks for? What did he think he was paying for? And we don't have an answer to that. COOPER: Do you think it was effective for Todd Blanche to, you know, push the cross examination all the way to the end of the day, so that tomorrow, there's no court. And you -- and Norm, you brought this up in the elevator during the lunch break. You were like, he's going to -- he should push it all the way. He said that they spend three days ruminating on the lies of Michael Cohen. STABILE: Look, you can look at it both ways. In some ways, I think I would have gotten him off the stand and ended with him and just been done with him, then you get some distance. And then if you're going to put on a defense case, maybe they're going to call an expert. They say, I don't know, some election expert. Then you start fresh on Monday, because the prosecution would have had to get up today and do their redirect. It's a little tougher to do it when you don't have three days to prepare, because sure the defense is reviewing the transcript. But guess who else is, the prosecution. And they're going to figure out all the things they need to fix on Monday. So what would have been maybe a 45-minute redirect might be an hour and a half redirect on Monday, now that you gave them those three days. COOPER: That's interesting. RAY: Yes, maybe. But I know if the prosecution had done redirect today, they wouldn't have finished. EISEN: Can I -- RAY: It was still have gone over to next week. EISEN: On Kaitlan's very interesting retainer point. This is one of the most obscure areas of law. The reason -- COOPER: Which makes your eyes sparkle. EISEN: It does. It's very -- I would've talked to you about it in the elevator. I would've cornered you in the elevator. The law of retainer letter. The reason he didn't need a retainer was because he was employed by the Trump Organization. COLLINS: Right. EISEN: He was in house. In house lawyers don't need a retainer letter. When you leave under New York rules, you are supposed to have a written retainer. So it is proof that he was not actually doing legal work, that he didn't have a written retainer letter, that's why Hoffinger closed. That was one of her last points in the closing. PHILLIP: You're saying that when he was working for Trump at the time, he didn't need one. EISEN: He didn't because he was, yes, he was in house. COLLINS: At Trump Org. PHILLIP: At Trump Org, yes. EISEN: So the -- that was one of the many Todd Blanche lines of questioning that fell flat today. There were times when the jury was bored. COOPER: There was a lot of questioning about what Michael Cohen wanted after the election. We know what position he wanted in the White House. There was a lot of testimony about that, which I thought I didn't see it going where. Did you? I mean -- EISEN: It was interminable. And it led no place. COOPER: I mean, Michael Cohen kept saying I wanted to be personal attorney to, you know, Donald J. Trump, which a line he repeated. EISEN: I like your impression. COOPER: I mean I just -- I lost interest in it halfway. You know, they were claiming, no, you want to be special counsel. And that was a phrase his daughter had used. I mean, it just seemed -- PHILLIP: I think it would also be a mistake for the defense to try to weirdly convince the jury that this wasn't about the election. I mean, that is also one of the things that I think is kind of settled, like we know -- STABILE: Well, I mean, look they say they're going to call this election expert, I think the judge is going to allow them to call. I think it's Bradley Smith and his order, he said that they can call him to say, you know, this is how the Federal Election Commission works. These are some of the definitions. But there's one definition that I think you need to watch out for, and what is a personal expense, versus a business expense. And the election law says and it's 52 USC 30114. And it says it's a personal expense, if you would have made it irrespective of your campaign. And the argument that they've been trying to weave in the defense is that he would have made this payment to Stormy Daniels to protect his family, to protect Melania. So I think they're going to try and argue he would have made this payment irrespective of the campaign. Therefore, it is not a campaign finance violation. And that's -- RAY: Therefore by the way, the Federal Election Commission would have agreed now whether we'll be able to get that, it sounds unlikely. But if you had gone to the Federal Election Commission and truthfully disclosed, we want to make this payment to Stormy Daniels. We want her to go away. We think that it may have some effect on the outcome of the election. Will you approve this as a campaign expenditure? The FEC would have looked at them, like what are you out of your mind? So it can't both be what the prosecution has. It can't both be, wait a second, this is a concealed campaign expenditure. If the people who sort of make those fine judgments are like, wait, no, of course, it's a personal expense. I mean, you know, the John Edwards case is essentially a proof of that. STABILE: Exactly. The John Edwards case then creates an interesting legal issue and I think that's one reason why you strategize to have those two lawyers on there because they're going to be like getting this. [20:45:08] COOPER: Do you think that anything today's proceedings change what do you think that the jury is thinking about this case? And also Todd Blanche got very heated on this. I mean, he called him a liar. He grabbed the microphone like closely like someone like drunk at a party might, you know, grab a mic and his voice was loud in the room. He at one point, you know, said to the jurors, like they don't want to hear you know, whatever. Do you think is that effective? I mean, it was attention -- STABILE: Which on Michael Cohen it's, you know, you got to pick your witnesses. You can't just, you know, be a bull in a China shop with everybody. But I think with Michael Cohen, I think it was totally fine. RAY: It was a wedding singer moment. COOPER: It was. Yes. Renato Stabile, thank you so much really fascinating. Not only did Trump's lawyer Todd Blanche raise his voice as I just said at times, he also raised his hand with some dramatic flair to put a visual on the point. My next guest captured some of that -- those intense moments. So we'll talk to one of the great courtroom artists ahead. (COMMERCIAL BREAK) [20:50:11] COOPER: In searing cross examination, Michael Cohen today, Donald Trump's lawyer, Todd Blanche, grilled Cohen on all the times he previously gone under oath, raised his right hand and then lied. This was one of those combative moments captured by the ultra-talented veteran courtroom sketch artist Jane Rosenberg, and we're very glad that she's back with us tonight. You've got to be exhausted. I appreciate you coming in to talk about the day. I mean, to many people in the courtroom, this was an exciting day with the cross examination toward the end of it, you captured this moment of Todd Blanche, raising his hand that was in his cross examination of Michael Cohen. And he was repeatedly saying you've, you know, sworn in a courtroom, you've raised your right hand. When you saw that, had you already started to sketch? Or did you suddenly have to shift and start a whole new sketch of Todd Blanche raising his arm? I mean did you know this was going to be the moment? JANE ROSENBERG, COURTROOM SKETCH ARTIST: I did not know it'd be the moment. And I did start another one with him leaning over the podium like this, which he does a lot. But then he raised his hand and I had to switch that, so. COOPER: So can you just raise an arm and -- ROSENBERG: And he did it so many times. He raised his -- COOPER: Right. ROSENBERG: You swore and tell the truth, and what did it mean? And -- COOPER: In fact, at a certain point, the judge seemed to sort of be like, OK, you know, we got it. Let's move it along. But did you have to, like raise the arm or do you start a whole new sketch? ROSENBERG: No, I raised the arm. COOPER: OK. ROSENBERG: Well, I mean, doesn't always work but I -- that's what I did this time, because I had so much else already in there. I felt, Oh, I think I can just put that arm up. It's there now. Just pull it up. COOPER: You've heard a lot of cross examinations. Did you think -- I mean did this one register to you in any particular way? ROSENBERG: No. COOPER: No. You didn't think was as excited? Like, I haven't seen many. So I thought the end was incredibly -- ROSENBERG: No. Cross is often exciting, and it should be. And lawyers get really excited when they're going to cross somebody I think. RAY: That's why they call it the crucible of cross examination. COLLINS: Well, and Todd Blanche is not really well practiced in a cross examination. I mean, he -- I think he would even acknowledge that. And so today, it was really a big test for him and took for him to kind of have, you know, this disbelieving tone in his voice as Michael Cohen was answering his questions, raising his hands, raising his voice kind of this high pitched voice at times to kind of say, no one can believe what you're saying Michael Cohen. COOPER: It seemed almost apoplectic at times, like, are you kidding me? COLLINS: Yes, he would say, are you finished now? Please don't give a speech. I understand your characterization, but we just read it. Nothing on that letter is not the truth. And I'll just say one moment that I noticed today was after a break, they were walking back in the room. Normally Trump strides in by himself. He's at the front of the room -- he comes in alone, and then everyone trails behind him. He and Todd Blanche were walking side by side kind of talking to one another. You never really see Trump like that with his attorney walking into the room. ROSENBERG: No, you're right. He's always behind him, Todd Blanche. EISEN: I will say that in some of those more shrill Todd Blanche moments, including the two at the end, where he confronted Cohen, and there was an objection and the objection was sustained. Those were moments that -- the jury paid, I thought, hard to discern attention. They were very attentive. You couldn't read them. They were visibly annoyed with Blanche. I saw eye rolling, really looking away. It was too much and it detracted. It shows his lack of experience, because it actually detracted from the point he was making. He would have been better to let the revelation that he had elicited from Cohen breathe, rather than being objected to and so loud and unpleasant. I mean, it looked to me like the jury was not liking Todd Blanche very much in those moments. RAY: Well, editorializing while you're cross examining a witness is usually a bad idea. I mean, that's not what you're there to do. You're there -- COOPER: Bad from a legal standpoint or just from a jury impact? RAY: From a tactical jury impact standpoint, you know, the jury is not interested in your editorializing. They want to try to get to the facts, just like every jury wants to get to the facts. But that moment with the, you know, the hand raised, or whatever, I'm sure that you dated your work, and probably know that the time to, right? Someday that will probably appear on Todd Blanche's office wall I'm sure for fee. ROSENBERG: It is. RAY: But there you go. TOOBIN: I love critiquing lawyers as much as the next person. But you know, every time I've talked to jurors, almost always what you hear from them is, oh, you know, the lawyers were fine, but the evidence was X. RAY: Yes. TOOBIN: And they, you know, they don't parse the performance of the attorneys as much as we do. And I think, you know, this is one of the great things about the jury system is that I think the evidence actually matters a lot more than the performance of the lawyers. [20:55:05] PHILLIP: Yes. The person who does parse the lawyers is definitely Trump. RAY: Yes. PHILLIP: And I mean, if our friend Arthur Dahlia (ph) was here, he would say, you know, Trump and his other attorney Susan Necheles has way more experience in doing across than Todd Blanche. But once that moment happened, I was like, OK, that's why Todd Blanche is doing this cross examination. He, Trump is a very, you know, he likes to archetype people and just sort of put them in their categories. I can imagine this is speculation, but I can only imagine him thinking, wanting to have somebody with the physicality of Todd Blanche, who is actually a very kind of broad shouldered type of person, to be able to do that kind of aggressive, sort of in your face challenging of Michael Cohen, that Susan Necheles is an incredible professional. But she's -- that's not how she conducts herself in doing her job. And stylistically, it's a choice whether it will matter to the jury, I don't know, but it probably matters. RAY: I think that's a high theater moment. And although Jeffrey is correct to point out that it's still ultimately about facts, but high theater moments, people are human. You know, facts are not everything, people. When it comes to jury deliberations in my experience, those are emotional moments, in addition to facts gathering, moments and theater -- TRIALS are theater after all, theater matters. Theater matters. ROSENBERG: I've seen lawyers without theater, and you can go to sleep. RAY: That's not a problem with this panel Jane. COOPER: Jane Rosenberg, thank you so much as always. ROSENBERG: OK. Yes. COOPER: We return with Michael Cohen's former attorney and current legal adviser Lanny Davis his taken whether his client dug a hole for himself or did well for himself and also the its take on the prosecution today going into the final stages of this trial. We'll be right back. (COMMERCIAL BREAK) The Source with Kaitlan Collins Aired May 16, 2024 - 21:00 ET THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED. (COMMERCIAL BREAK) [21:01:08] ANDERSON COOPER, CNN HOST: It is just past 9 PM, here in New York. Today, the defense, in the former President's hush money trial exploded the tightly-crafted narrative of the prosecution, and scored a hit against a key witness, whose credibility has been an issue from the start, Michael Cohen. We were -- a lot of us were sitting in the courtroom, along with a room full of people who were watching the cross-examination very closely. It turned into a methodical dissection of Cohen, by defense attorney, Todd Blanche. Blanche presented text messages, between Cohen, and Trump's bodyguard, Keith Schiller, from October 24th, 2016. Now, on Monday, Cohen had characterized these exchanges with Schiller, as a way to just to get to then-candidate Trump, to get Trump on the phone, and get final approval for the Stormy Daniels payment scheme. Instead, the texts do not speak of that. Rather, they show that Cohen wanted Schiller's help with a 14-year-old prank-caller, who had apparently been antagonizing Michael -- Cohen for days. A short time ago, Cohen's texts with the 14-year-old were shown -- that were shown in court were released. Cohen texts, this number has just been sent to Secret Service for your ongoing and continuous harassment to both my cell as well as to the organization's main line. The person then responds, it wasn't me. My friend told me to call. I'm sorry for this. I won't do it again. Cohen then replies, you will need to explain this to Secret Service as we have been receiving dozens of these harassing calls over the past three days. If you are a minor, I suggest you notify your parent or guardian. The person responds in all caps. I DIDN'T DO IT. And then texts I'm 14. Why it is -- so bizarre. I mean. Sorry. We're joined now by former federal -- former federal prosecutor, Elie Honig. And Michael Cohen's former attorney and current legal adviser, Lanny Davis. So Lanny, were you -- were you surprised the defense appeared effective in undermining Cohen's credibility, about that phone call to Keith Schiller? I mean, when he testified, earlier in the week, that call was portrayed as it was a call to Keith Schiller, to get to Trump. There was no mention of this 14-year-old, and wanting to talk to Keith Schiller, to trace the number, and figure out some way to get back at this person. LANNY J. DAVIS, FORMER ATTORNEY FOR MICHAEL COHEN: So, no, I wasn't surprised. And I don't think the jury is going to be persuaded by those kinds of mistakes, who are making Michael Cohen the accused, and everybody having fun, calling him a liar on television. This case is about, as I first was introduced to it, by the prosecutors, my first day, this case is about documents, testimony and corroboration. Michael Cohen is a confirming witness. Donald Trump loves to change the subject, and his lawyers love to change the subject. They want Michael Cohen to be the one, who's indicted and accused. So let me just remind you what we've seen in evidence so far. I'm not going to speculate or downgrade a jury's focus on facts. I don't disparage juries. But I'm also not a trial lawyer. So maybe trial lawyers, who do disparage jury -- juries are correct. But I think that you have to remember, the first element of this crime was corroborated. You don't need Michael Cohen. You had David Pecker. You had Hope Hicks. Everybody knew that the money being paid to Stormy Daniels was for the campaign. It wasn't to protect him from being embarrassed, in front of his wife. That's what the testimony has been so far. COOPER: Yes. J. DAVIS: And the second most important part of the crime is did Donald Trump lie, when he said they were legal fees? Well, there is a hot document, meaning a document that's very powerful, and the handwriting verified to be Allen Weisselberg, in which he has three categories of money that Michael spent, on behalf of Donald Trump. One was $130,000, written down in his handwriting, times two, and the three categories added up $420,000 divided by 12. COOPER: Right. J. DAVIS: And-- COOPER: But let me just interrupt, because we've gone -- this is all very clear. But Michael Cohen's-- J. DAVIS: And-- [21:05:00] COOPER: Sorry. Michael Cohen is clearly important to the prosecution. I mean, he's a critical witness, for the prosecution, in order -- I mean, he's really the only one, who can speak to whether Donald Trump was aware of how this stuff was going to be billed, the full nature of this scheme. He's the one, who gives that testimony, which is why they're devoting so much time, and taking the risk of putting him on the stand. I know it doesn't go well for Michael Cohen, if he's shown to be lying. I mean, you're not -- doesn't it seem like today, at the very least, in the end of this morning session, he seemed to be caught, in the very least, a mistake in memory, about this phone call that he had just testified? Not some old lie, but this testimony from in front of this jury. Isn't that a big deal? J. DAVIS: I can't predict. I don't think jurors will find it a big deal compared to the corroborating evidence of Allen Weisselberg's document that proves that if -- I was going to say to you is $420,000 divided by 12 equals $35,000. Those are the checks that a sitting president, each month, wrote to Michael Cohen. It's the math, stupid. I was going to do a joke before, Anderson, about James Carville's, the economy, stupid. It's the math that Allen Weisselberg, that document proves these could not have been legal fees. He divided for $420,000 by 12. He came up with $35,000. And the sitting President, in the Oval Office, wrote Michael Cohen $35,000 checks. COOPER: Right. J. DAVIS: On his personal bank account, and paid him $35,000. Those weren't legal fees. If they're not legal fees, they were reimbursements. That makes it a crime. So, those are the documents. That's the testimony of third-parties, including Hope Hicks, very favorable to Mr. Trump. And so, whether Michael Cohen made mistakes, or is shouted-out by a lawyer, or whatever happens that is entertaining, or a gotcha moment, which I can definitely understand, Anderson, the documents speak for themselves. COOPER: OK. J. DAVIS: The testimony speaks for themselves. And we know that the jury will ultimately hear the prosecution. COOPER: Yes. J. DAVIS: And sum the case up, focus on the Weisselberg document. COOPER: Lanny-- JEFFREY TOOBIN, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: Lanny, do you think they never should have-- KAITLAN COLLINS, CNN HOST: But-- COOPER: Hold on. TOOBIN: I'm sorry. Go ahead, Kaitlan. COLLINS: Lanny, it's Kaitlan. J. DAVIS: Hi. COLLINS: That answer that you just gave to Anderson there, was a little over a minute, close to 90 seconds. That is how long the phone call was with Keith Schiller, that night. And what Michael Cohen argued today is that he simultaneously talked about the OK for the hush money deal, and these prank calls that he was getting from a 14-year-old. I mean, is the jury really going to find that credible that in 96 seconds, they had both of those conversations? J. DAVIS: I think it could be that the jury will hold that against Michael Cohen as not being truthful. But it's not going to change what I said. This case is about documents that speak for themselves. The Weisselberg document, it's more powerful for the jury to look at, to prove that Donald Trump lied, who's by the way, the one who's indicted, not Michael Cohen. COLLINS: Absolutely, Lanny. But Lanny? J. DAVIS: Whether Michael Cohen-- (CROSSTALK) ROBERT RAY, FORMER TRUMP COUNSEL IN FIRST IMPEACHMENT TRIAL: --about holding. COLLINS: Lanny, that's right. But you also mentioned here the other night that Michael Cohen spent over 100 hours, with prosecutors, not just this office, with this District Attorney, but in general in the New York -- in New York. Did these prank calls ever come up in those conversations, and this is what he was worried about that night? J. DAVIS: So, you know I'm a lawyer behind closed doors with prosecutors. I wasn't with the federal prosecutors. I was with these prosecutors, right? I can't answer that question. Let me just say that the story that Keith Schiller is saying, now? Let's see if he testifies. And then, we'll see who's believable. And that's up to the jury. But I also am expecting Donald Trump to testify, because he said I would testify. He's never taken it back. So, maybe we'll get a chance to see what Donald Trump says, who's not exactly known for truthfulness. But no, Michael has definitely suffered these things in arrows (ph). When he came to me, he was known to be a liar for Donald Trump. I don't want to go on another 90 seconds, Kaitlan, sorry, but. COLLINS: You're allowed to go on for 90 seconds. J. DAVIS: I know. COLLINS: I know Jeffrey Toobin has a question for you, as well. J. DAVIS: I don't want to-- TOOBIN: But do you think they shouldn't have called him? I mean, it sounds like what you're saying, Lanny, is that all this evidence was already in. Do you really think they shouldn't have called Michael Cohen as a witness? J. DAVIS: I think they had to, because he's the corroborating witness to testimony, documents, emails, text messages, the timeline. So, he is the narrator, confirming what is already in evidence. Now, they attack the narrator, they change the topic, and they make it about the narrator confirming. And of course, the drama of the case is made by Michael Cohen. And when a lawyer shouts at him, you lie? I want to see if he puts up a witness, and we'll see who's telling the truth. But of course, he had to testify, Jeffrey. But all he's doing is confirming the testimony of others. And documents don't lie. COOPER: I know Elie has a question for you. ELIE HONIG, CNN SENIOR LEGAL ANALYST: I'm sorry. I don't have a question. I have something to say. COOPER: Oh, Elie. [21:10:00] HONIG: Michael Cohen got blown apart today. Let's be real clear about that. And what was different about this than all his other lies that he's told over the years, all of his things he pled guilty to, his lies to Congress, is this goes to the heart of his testimony. Prosecutors, by the way, whatever happened to the burden of proof? Why are these defense lawyers saying who's got a better story? It's not, who's got a better story. The prosecutors have to prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt. If the jury decides Michael Cohen lied, they have every right to reject his testimony. This case is over. There's only two possibilities for what happened today. Michael Cohen lied, about this meeting, which seems to be a conclusion that a lot of people who were in the courtroom are drawing. Or he made a massive mistake. But you know what? When you're a prosecutor, and you're putting your star witness on, you don't get a whoopsie. You don't get oops, we messed up. They prepared Michael Cohen to an inch of his life. Lanny Davis had a 100-plus hours. They went through everything with him. They saw that phone call, 8:02 PM. Michael Cohen said, yes, that's, that -- oh, yes, yes, corroboration. RAY: And it's not just about the witness. It reflects-- NORMAN EISEN, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: Elie. HONIG: Hold on. Hold on. Corroboration, corroboration. They missed those texts. RAY: Yes. COOPER: Prosecutor screwed up, because if they had seen those texts? RAY: Reflects poorly on the prosecution. HONIG: Exactly. RAY: This is not -- this is not just-- HONIG: Hold on. RAY: --about how a jury feels about Michael Cohen. HONIG: Yes. RAY: This is a very sad thing for the prosecution. HONIG: And-- RAY: And ultimately, what you're going to hear in summation is all this nonsense about witnesses and so forth. If the jury doesn't believe that the prosecution was well-founded and starts to hate the government's case? And this is an area where the prosecution, overlooked something major, OK, and missed the boat, or sponsored something without taking him through this, and tried to turn this conversation into more than it really was, which is to say something other than it really was? That not just a problem for the witness. That's a problem for the prosecution. HONIG: And let me just-- EISEN: It's true. But Elie, I was there. HONIG: And-- EISEN: Michael Cohen did not get blown apart. They landed one punch-- HONIG: You are in a distinct minority. EISEN: I will-- HONIG: I've talked to a lot of people in that courtroom. EISEN: If I was there alone, I would feel the same way. They landed one punch on his chin. HONIG: I'm sure you would. EISEN: That is not enough. In a cross-examination like this, you've got to land multiple punches. This is a witness. HONIG: They landed-- EISEN: Now, let me speak. RAY: Unless you are Joe Lewis (ph). EISEN: This is a witness, who had bonded with this jury. It is a witness, who has been corroborated by more than 18 days of trial testimony, by other witnesses, many hostile to Cohen, positive for Trump. There's a larger mosaic of evidence. Now, I've gone on for 90 seconds. You see how much? COLLINS: I'm not timing it-- EISEN: And I want to make that point too. You see how much you can pack into 90 seconds? There is room to talk about a 14-year-old prank- caller-- COLLINS: No, you're on cable news. EISEN: And a hush money payment. COLLINS: You're on cable news-- (CROSSTALK) EISEN: I don't think this was enough. RAY: Norman, plan -- and plan is possible-- EISEN: And prosecution was ahead on points. RAY: That's certainly possible. EISEN: It was not enough. RAY: But Elie's point is whatever happened to beyond a reasonable doubt and the presumption of innocence? The government's got to prove this. EISEN: One -- one-- HONIG: This is not a civil case. This is not like the-- (CROSSTALK) EISEN: One sequence is not enough to create reasonable doubt across the entire case. It was one time that Blanche tagged him. Did he tag him? Yes. Was it a punch on the chin? Yes. Did he knock Michael Cohen out? No. Cohen stood his ground. He said in there. Will you say you lied? I did not lie. And Cohen was much stronger in the afternoon. The prosecution was ahead on points. It's a closer case now. They needed a knockout punch. They didn't-- HONIG: And what would a knockout-- EISEN: --get it. HONIG: What would a knockout punch be if not that? Tell me what a knockout punch is-- EISEN: It would be a series-- HONIG: --on your book. EISEN: --of lies. And it would be shaking-- HONIG: How many do you need? EISEN: It would be shaking Michael Cohen. (CROSSTALK) HONIG: Well let me-- EISEN: It would be getting him to retrench. HONIG: OK. EISEN: He didn't back off his point. HONIG: Me and you, Norm. No one's listening. Would you, Norm Eisen, send a man to prison, take away his liberty, based on the testimony of Michael Cohen? EISEN: This is not about-- HONIG: Yes or no. Yes or no. EISEN: Unlike -- unlike the witnesses on the stand, I don't have to accept your yes or no insistence. HONIG: Maybe. EISEN: And I'm not going to. HONIG: Maybe. EISEN: This is not about the testimony of Michael Cohen alone. RAY: This is why we got juries though. They get to decide. It's the beauty of this. EISEN: It's about a vast amount of corroboration-- RAY: Doesn't matter what we say. EISEN: --for Michael Cohen. One bad answer is not going to sink this case. HONIG: And let me -- let me agree with Norm. COLLINS: You got 90 seconds. HONIG: I'm going to agree with Norm for a second. TOOBIN: It's way past 90 seconds. HONIG: There is substantial corroboration for parts of this transaction. But ultimately, let me ask you this. I actually don't know the -- I'm interested in your answer. If the jury decides, gets back in that deliberation room and says, we're not going to credit Michael Cohen, eliminate him, pull him out of the case? Is there enough left to convict? EISEN: No. HONIG: OK. COOPER: Right. HONIG: So there is the problem. COOPER: Well I want to-- ABBY PHILLIP, CNN HOST: And it's Michael Cohen's word. COOPER: I want to go back to Lanny. Lanny, you're at a disadvantage, because you're on remote. So, it's hard with it. So, I know you're probably chomping at the bit. I want to give you 90 seconds, and we got to go. J. DAVIS: Well, first of all, totally shocked that Elie Honig makes declarative statements of guilt. It's just shocking. But no surprise there. Thank you, Elie. And Norm, thank you. HONIG: What kind of ad hominem attack is this? J. DAVIS: Thank you. I mean, thank you, Norman, for reminding everybody that Michael has stood up very well. And if you're a juror, you can see an imperfect witness, and still look at facts, as some lawyers said they don't look at facts. [21:15:00] So, let me just end by this note. The corroborating testimony, on the money being about the campaign, is nearly a 100 percent. And that's what Michael Cohen has testified to. So, the jury doesn't have to believe him on that. We have David Pecker. We have Hope Hicks. We have others. On the issue of whether they were legal fees or reimbursements, which is what the key second element of the crime is, whether they were falsely lodged as legal fees? We do know, from Allen Weisselberg's handwriting, that he took a number, doubled it, and divided it by 12. As James Carville would say, it's the math, stupid. There's nothing about legal fees in that math. So, those two elements of the crime have been proven. Michael Cohen can be attacked all that -- you all rightfully might say that he wasn't perfect. But there's no doubt that Weisselberg wrote in his own handwriting, $420,000 divided by 12. COOPER: Right. J. DAVIS: And that $420,000 from three buckets of money doubled up because of income tax. That's the case. And whatever you say about Michael Cohen, he has stood up to corroborate -- corroborate. He's a corroborating witness. That's my view. COOPER: Lanny Davis, I appreciate your time. And Norm Eisen, as well. Thank you, Norm. It was great being in court with you. Coming up, we'll examine how the former President's defense team tried to target -- tried to punch holes, in Michael Cohen's testimony, continually throughout the day. We've finally just got the full transcript from today's testimony. We'll have that next. (COMMERCIAL BREAK) [21:20:32] COOPER: Moments ago, we got the full transcripts, from today's testimony, including that moment about the text exchange between Michael Cohen and Trump's bodyguard, Keith Schiller that defined the trial today. John Berman joins us now. So what else have you found? JOHN BERMAN, CNN ANCHOR: All right, so we have the transcript now of that moment. It begins with the text messages that you showed before. Michael Cohen texts Keith Schiller, who can I speak to regarding phone calls to my cell and office? The dope forgot to block one of them. So, that was at 7:48. This is Todd Blanche saying this. COOPER: And by the way, the importance of that is he has testified that he was calling Keith Schiller, to get to Trump quickly, because Trump -- he had to get approval to move forward on the Stormy Daniels payment. BERMAN: So, Blanche is walking through here. At 8:02, he said, call me. I can put it up back again. He's putting the texts up. At 8:01 is when he leaves that voicemail. Michael Cohen says, yes. Blanche says, you call in back at 8:02, for one minute and 36 seconds. Kaitlan Collins with the clock there. At 8:04, you text in the number of the 14-year-old, who was prank- calling you, correct? Cohen says, I did, yes. Immediately he texts you back. Within a few seconds, he said OK. And then Cohen says yes, sir. Blanche says the very next morning, at 7:58, you say, did you reach the family? Cohen says yes sir. Blanche says take it down. Now, here's the question here. When you testified on Tuesday that you had a specific recollection that that one minute and 36 second phone call, on October 24th was not with Keith Schiller, that you called Keith Schiller and he passed the phone to President Trump, you finalized the deal with Stormy Daniels. And you said we're going to move forward. And he said yes, because you kept him informed all the time. That was your testimony, right? Michael Cohen says that's correct. Blanche says that was a lie. You were actually talking to Mr. Schiller about the fact you were getting harassing phone calls from a 14-year- old, correct? Cohen says part of it was the 14-year-old. But I know that Keith was with Mr. Trump at the time, and there was more than potentially just this. That's what I recall, based upon the documents I reviewed. It goes on. I mean, Blanche says, five minutes ago, I asked you if you remembered harassing phone calls, and you said no. And then I refreshed your recollection. It's totally fair, if you don't remember. But now your testimony is that you are testifying truthfully on Tuesday, to a one minute and 36 second phone call, and you had enough time in that one minute and 36 seconds, to update Mr. Schiller, about all the problems you're having with those harassing phone calls, and also update President Trump, on the status of the Stormy Daniels situation. I'll stop here. But it goes on. COOPER: He went on to say that it might have been just a few words to President Trump, like moving forward with Stormy Daniels, is that OK. Trump said, agreed. It might have been just that BERMAN: But Cohen says based upon the records that I was able to review, in light of everything that was going on, I believe I also -- I believe I also spoke to Mr. President Trump, and told him everything regarding the Stormy Daniels matter was being worked on, and it's going to be resolved. Blanche says we're not asking for your belief. This jury doesn't want to hear what you think happened. Then there's an objection which is sustained. HONIG: You see Michael Cohen getting caught there. Can you go back to this -- this -- when Michael Cohen realizes that he's in trouble here, the first -- the first page you read, this one here. BERMAN: Yes. HONIG: When he says -- Michael Cohen realizes he's caught now. And he says part of it was the 14-year-old, first time he's ever said that on cross-examination. COOPER: He's never mentioned the 14-year-old. HONIG: No. COOPER: This has never been in testimony. HONIG: No. COOPER: And it didn't even seem like him, what Todd Blanche later revealed is he wasn't briefed on the 14-year-old. HONIG: Right. COOPER: The prosecutors, to your point, they didn't catch it. PHILLIP: Yes. HONIG: Here's part two of the retreat by Michael Cohen. And there was more than potentially just this. COOPER: Potentially. PHILLIP: Yes. HONIG: I mean, he's-- RAY: This is why it's so dangerous-- PHILLIP: Yes. RAY: --for a prosecutor to try to rely on testimony from somebody that certainly from the federal government's perspective is not somebody they would ever have put on trial. COOPER: Yes. RAY: This is dangerous stuff, because stuff like this happens, mistakes are made. HONIG: Yes. RAY: And if they're made, your point, that's devastating. COOPER: Yes. TOOBIN: Can I just ask? I mean, and-- RAY: Norm -- Norm Eisen, to the contrary, notwithstanding. TOOBIN: Well and-- RAY: Just telling you, that's devastating. TOOBIN: But what I am curious about, and I'm genuinely curious, I don't -- I mean, isn't it also true that he had other conversations with Trump, about completing this transaction, including some the next day? So even if you believe that he's completely wrong, about this conversation, is that devastating to the case? COOPER: Well, I mean, by the way-- you're saying he had other conversations, according to him? TOOBIN: Well, the other phone calls-- COOPER: So if you-- TOOBIN: --including phone calls that were not with Keith Schiller that were -- that were to Donald Trump's phone number. COOPER: Right. But-- TOOBIN: Or he-- COOPER: --he's testifying about the content of those phone calls. So if you don't-- TOOBIN: OK. So-- COOPER: If you believe that he's lying about this phone call-- RAY: If you conclude that he's lying about this one, they're entitled-- PHILLIP: Yes. RAY: --to believe that he's lying about all the other ones, right? [21:25:00] TOOBIN: Well, of course. They're entitled to disbelieve his entire testimony. RAY: Well that -- and that's-- TOOBIN: The whole thing. RAY: And that's the instruction they'll be given. TOOBIN: Absolutely. RAY: Right. TOOBIN: But my question is if he's mistaken about this, isn't it possible that he is genuinely mistaken about this, and there are other phone calls? I mean, he was obviously involved in these negotiations. Is it -- is it believable that he had all these negotiations, and didn't discuss them with Trump? I mean, that seems preposterous. COOPER: Clearly, he -- yes. PHILLIP: He clearly-- (CROSSTALK) PHILLIP: But again, I'm feeling like a broken record. But it's, we know the payments were made. We know that they were hush money. Trump is not on trial for paying Stormy Daniels. He's -- he's just not. And that the end of the day, they have to get to this point, where the jury is like, OK, we believe that Donald Trump understood that these were going to be falsely recorded, on his business records. That's the only thing really, at this point, that matters. If you also believe, as I think most rational people do that Trump cared about the election. That was a factor. But I just I think it's a credibility thing, a 100 percent about Michael Cohen. Do you believe Michael Cohen, when he says he was in a room with Allen Weisselberg, and they talked about X, Y and Z? Do you believe him when he said he was on the phone? Those things might all be true. But it hinges on that one guy. COOPER: Yes. PHILLIP: Because all the other people involved are not on the witness list. RAY: And especially, in a situation here, where the prosecution made a mistake, because what it looks like is that they were trying to sponsor a narrative with this witness. And boy, once the jury gets ahold of that, that's trouble. COLLINS: You know what was-- RAY: That's trouble for the prosecution. COLLINS: In the room today, and clearly, after the morning session, in that moment, and then they took a break. Todd Blanche says now a good time for a break. And so they had that lunch break, about an hour or so before they came back in. Trump's demeanor in the courtroom was so different than it's been at any other point in this trial. COOPER: That's right. COLLINS: Typically, even when they're cross-examining Stormy Daniels or other people, he sits back in his chair. He has his eyes closed for sustained periods of time. COOPER: Yes. COLLINS: He's passing notes to his attorneys, kind of furiously. Today, he had his body language shifted towards the direction of the witness stand. He was looking at Michael Cohen. Sometimes, he looked back at Todd Blanche, as he was asking him a question. His body language was completely different today. COOPER: Yes. COLLINS: He seemed much-- COOPER: Essentially. COLLINS: --happier. PHILLIP: You've got some more transcripts, John? BERMAN: I do, although I'm not fully sure which one's here. Now I have like-- HONIG: Real-time confirming the due process. (CROSSTALK) PHILLIP: Maybe he's got a giant binder. COOPER: Well, and he was asked about his desire to work. And there was a lot of testimony. BERMAN: Yes. OK. That one I do have. That-- COOPER: Which frankly, I didn't think really was-- BERMAN: That one I do have. COOPER: --all that well (ph). BERMAN: He says, do you remember telling Congress that it was a lie, that you did not want to go to the White House? Do you remember saying that to Congress? This was -- Blanche spent a long time-- COOPER: Right. BERMAN: --trying to get Cohen to admit that he wanted to work in the White House. And this has been something that was taken up in Congress, a few years ago. Cohen says, I remember telling Congress, I did not want to work in the White House. Blanche says, well, do you remember saying, what you testified to on Tuesday is that you didn't want to go to the White House? Cohen says yes. And then a little bit later, Blanche says, do you recall on or around November 13th, President Trump picked Mr. Priebus to be the Chief of Staff, right? Cohen says, yes, sir. Blanche says you told your daughter you were disappointed? Cohen says, that I wasn't considered, yes, sir. In the middle of all of that Blanche also brought up, all these people that Cohen had apparently said he wanted to work in the White House to, including Spencer Zwick-- COOPER: It seemed-- BERMAN: --who worked for Mitt Romney, and-- COOPER: It seemed to me in the room-- BERMAN: Yes. COOPER: --at the time, to be kind of awash on this, because Michael Cohen just stuck to it saying essentially, sort of they were quibbling about semantics. And Michael Cohen was saying, I wanted to be personal attorney -- I -- all along, I wanted to be a personal attorney to Donald J. Trump. And they were quibbling of do you -- you know, your daughter said, you wanted to be special assistant? And he said, no, that's semantics. BERMAN: Yes. COOPER: Anyway. HONIG: Ordinarily, this would be a decent, nice little piece of -- piece of cross because A, it goes to his motivation. You want to get this guy back, you're bitter. And B, it's probably a lie. I know for a fact it's a lie, because I was in a room with two other people, who we all know, and believe 100 percent and respect, who said, he said to me, he was ticked that he didn't go to the White House. I mean, he said it to, I think every journalist he was talking to at the time. COLLINS: But he did-- HONIG: So, he absolutely lied about that. COLLINS: He -- he talked about it in a more nuanced view, when he was up, initially, with the prosecution. HONIG: Yes. COLLINS: He said he didn't necessarily think he was qualified to be the Chief of Staff in the West Wing. He wanted his name to be considered. He wanted-- HONIG: Right. COLLINS: And he acknowledged. COOPER: He said for ego. COLLINS: He said for ego. COOPER: Yes. HONIG: Nuanced is a nice way to put it. I call it like a mealy- mouthed-weasel explanation-- COOPER: John Berman, thanks for the transcript. HONIG: --by Cohen. COOPER: The former President seemed a little more uplifted as, to Kaitlan's point, after his lawyer cornered Cohen, today, much uplifted, Kaitlan says. You'll hear that. And one of Trump's former attorneys on whether this might be a turning point for the defense. We'll be right back. (COMMERCIAL BREAK) [21:33:50] COOPER: Donald Trump, walking out of the courtroom, today, after his defense lawyer cornered his former fixer, Michael Cohen, on a phone call, at the heart of this case, and may have scored some major points for the jury. Here's the feedback from the former President. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) DONALD TRUMP (R), FORMER U.S. PRESIDENT AND 2024 PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: I think it was a very interesting day. It was a fascinating day. And it shows what a scam this whole thing is. (END VIDEO CLIP) COOPER: Joining us now is one of Trump's former attorneys, William Brennan. He represented Trump, during his second impeachment trial. And Mr. Brennan, appreciate you being with us. I'm wondering what you -- the fact that the -- they went to -- it's going to be a three-day weekend now, how beneficial is that for the defense that jurors have the next three days, to think about what they just heard, Todd Blanche and Michael Cohen discuss. WILLIAM J. BRENNAN, FORMER TRUMP PAYROLL CORP. ATTORNEY: Anderson, thanks for having me. It's not only beneficial to leave them marinate and ruminate on what they just heard. It also gives Mr. Blanche and his team three long days, to scour that transcript, and really fine-tune whatever is left of cross-examination. COOPER: It gives prosecutors the ability to do the same thing for redirect as well. J. BRENNAN: It does. But in that particular comparison, it's like tie- goes-to-the-runner kind of thing. It really is advantageous to the defense. COOPER: Yes. [21:35:00] J. BRENNAN: Because he's a defense witness, at this point. COOPER: Kaitlan, I know, has a lot more. COLLINS: When it comes to something that happened at the end of court, today, Todd Blanche would not say whether or not still if Donald is going to testify, when they were talking about other witnesses, that they may bring. In this conversation that we were just talking about with Michael Cohen, where he insisted that he spoke to Donald Trump, about that Stormy Daniels payment, on that night, when they're saying it might have actually just been about a prank-caller, why shouldn't Donald Trump testify and say that call never happened? J. BRENNAN: Kaitlan, there's a very good and simple reason for that. Because this isn't, who should you believe. This isn't, I want to hear two sides of a story and pick the winner. This is a criminal prosecution, where the burden is solely on the prosecution. It never ever shifts. Judge Merchan, who I have immense respect for, and I've spent eight weeks with him, in a Trump-related case, and just a total gentleman to deal with. But respectfully, he got it wrong, in a sidebar. I read a transcript that said he told Mr. Blanche, well, you know, you opened the door, on Stormy Daniels, by -- in your opening, saying that your client denied that there was a relationship. And he said something akin to the jury will have to decide who to believe. Really, they don't. The prosecution has the burden of proof. It never ever shifts. The defendant, in any case, can just sit there, and do the crossword puzzle, if he or she chooses. And in this particular case, they may call no witnesses. I doubt very much if this defendant will testify. There's talk that they may call an elections expert. COLLINS: Yes. J. BRENNAN: There's talk that they may call Mr. Costello. But I would be very, very surprised, Kaitlan, if this defendant testifies. COLLINS: So you don't think -- do you think that they should call any other witnesses, or just be done after Michael Cohen? J. BRENNAN: Well, I don't want to fall into the rabbit hole of armchair quarterback, because I hear a lot of people critiquing, especially before he really hit his stride, Mr. Blanche. And when you're in that position, it's like being a quarterback in the Super Bowl, that people should really just, as Greyhound used to say, sit down and leave the driving to us. I don't know who they should call. The case seems to really hinge a lot on Cohen. With all due respect to Lanny Davis, who I have affection and respect for, I heard his filibuster earlier, about ah, it's no big deal. Come on, you know it's. This is what it comes down to. Hush money payments are not illegal. NDAs are not illegal. I think Abby hit it right, when she said it all depends on tying it to that extra crime. COLLINS: Yes. J. BRENNAN: And he's yet to do that. Lanny is big on this document. COLLINS: Yes. J. BRENNAN: But where's Weisselberg? COLLINS: Well Bill -- Bill, one second? J. BRENNAN: So, if it was Trump and Weisselberg, and Cohen, you only hear from Cohen, who has an allergy to veracity? COLLINS: OK. Bill, you-- J. BRENNAN: I think the defense is in good shape. COLLINS: --you laid out a lot there. J. BRENNAN: Sorry, Kaitlan. COLLINS: And I'm not going to get to all of it, because it would take me over 90 seconds. But on the point about what you're -- no one is saying that NDAs are illegal here. And I know Todd Blanche tried to frame them today as just commonplace, among the wealthy and the famous that it is just pretty normal. No one is saying that Donald Trump is going to go to jail, because of a non-disclosure agreement. Falsifying business records is at the heart of this. And one point that Todd Blanche had Michael Cohen make today was that he has never had a legal retainer, while working for Donald Trump. So, the question in turn is, then why did Donald Trump cut Michael Cohen a 11 checks, and sign them, pursuant to an invoice that said it was because of a legal retainer? J. BRENNAN: I think Norm Eisen addressed this briefly. But in my home state, the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, we have rules of professional conduct as they do in New York. In fact, I sit on a hearing panel for the disability board. And our rules say the following. When you have a new client, you must express in a, either you call it an engagement letter or a fee agreement or a retainer agreement, the terms and scope of your representation. However, when it's a recurring client, you need not do so. So, I think it's kind of a term of art that we lawyers use. COLLINS: But he paid him pursuant to a retainer. That's the -- that's the whole point, is if there's not a retainer-- J. BRENNAN: Hey-- COLLINS: --then why did he pay him pursuant to a retainer? J. BRENNAN: Kaitlan, I mean, again, it's tomato-tomahto. To me, when somebody says, what's your retainer? I hear what's your fee? I mean, there's no doubt that Cohen worked for him, for a long time, whether he was a fixer, or a lawyer, or a combination of both. And he was paid for those services. TOOBIN: But -- but-- COLLINS: Bill, you're an attorney. Have you -- you worked for Donald Trump. Have you ever gotten -- have you ever had a retainer of $100,000 and gotten it grossed up by hundreds of thousands of dollars? J. BRENNAN: I feel like I should take the Fifth on that. But-- COLLINS: Have you? J. BRENNAN: I've certainly gotten big retainers, but. COLLINS: Yes. But did you have a retainer that was $100,000, and then you got $360,000 from your client? [21:40:00] J. BRENNAN: It really is not as black and white as Lanny or even the way you're phrasing it, would have you believe. There is lots of ways you can structure an agreement with a client. You can have cost outside or cost inside. My law firm can outlay the cost. And then, I can bill you for those costs, in addition to whatever legal services that we provide. So, that document, all due respect to Lanny, that's no smoking gun. And not only do I predict we certainly won't hear from Weisselberg. The prosecution said Cohen's their last witness. I'd ask Judge Merchan for a missing witness charge, because if three people were involved in this alleged deal, Trump, Weisselberg, and Cohen, and Cohen's the only one they're hearing from? And Cohen's credibility was shred badly today. I think that there's a long way to go, to get beyond a reasonable doubt. COLLINS: Jeffrey Toobin has a question for you. TOOBIN: Well you-- COLLINS: But quickly, after today, though, is there any chance that there's an acquittal, maybe after today, in your view? Has that -- has it changed how you see this now? J. BRENNAN: Is there any chance that there's an acquittal? You mean a not-guilty? COLLINS: Well not a hung jury? J. BRENNAN: Oh. COLLINS: I mean, Trump's team seemed to think going into this, there's no way they're getting an acquittal. J. BRENNAN: It's a great question. COLLINS: But a hung jury would be victory. J. BRENNAN: But I can tell you, from doing decades and decades of predicting what juries will do, you just never know. I think there's a very strong likelihood of a hung jury, which would result in a mistrial. And then, the prosecutors would have to decide, if they want to bring this thing back, a second time. There's always the possibility of a conviction or an acquittal. But all 12 would have to agree. It can't be like seven-five, eight-four, six-six. If one juror has a problem, and can't get beyond a reasonable doubt, it will be declared a mistrial, because of that hung jury. TOOBIN: I was just -- you were talking -- we were having this discussion about retainers, and what are the rules in Pennsylvania or New York? Isn't the issue here -- yes, it is true, if this were a continuing legal representation, it wouldn't matter exactly how they phrased it. But what's different here is that this is a reimbursement for $130,000. That's what this payment was. It wasn't any sort of retainer. So, isn't that really much different than how you characterize a continuing legal relationship? J. BRENNAN: Jeffrey, it really is not, because it's not -- there's no one definition for a retainer. We won't know what Weisselberg's intent and thoughts were, when he allegedly wrote that document, because the prosecution didn't call him. So, we have to look at this document, like, it's like Sanskrit and the Rosetta Stone. We have to try to glean what it is. And then, there's other things. There's ink in the milk, Jeffrey. There's $50,000 for some polling place. There is some bonus he was whining about. I mean, I know Lanny thinks that this thing is really going to bring it home. But I don't think so, after what happened to Cohen today. COOPER: Yes. TOOBIN: We shall see. We shall see. COOPER: William Brennan, thanks so much, always good to have you on. Appreciate it. J. BRENNAN: Thank you, Anderson. COOPER: Coming up next, how soon could the jury actually get the case? We'll ask a judge, who's known this judge for years. (COMMERCIAL BREAK) [21:47:25] COOPER: Deliberations in the Trump hush money trial could begin as soon as next week. Judge Merchan told the attorneys, today, to be prepared to make closing arguments, on Tuesday, with jury instructions quickly to follow. He also indicated court could possibly start early or run late, some days, to make up for lost time, with many dark days upcoming on the court's calendar. For his part, the former President is attacking the speed, at which the trial is moving, after spending months attempting to delay the proceedings. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) TRUMP: It's very sad. Then we have story after story about how this trial is one that should've, as they say, never been charged. It should have never been brought. And again, if it was going to be brought, it should have been brought years ago. You know, they're trying to rush to get it done before the election, so that they can harm me, so they can hurt their political opponent. They're rushing. All this rush. There's no rush, these trials take forever. But this one, they're rushing in. We're here at early in the morning, and we leave in the evening. Now, the judge wants to extend the time periods, so that we can get this thing done fast before the election. (END VIDEO CLIP) COOPER: Joining us now is former New York Judge, Jill Konviser, who we should also mention has known Judge Merchan, for more than 15 years. But Bill Brennan was talking about a missing witness charge. Can you explain what that is? JILL KONVISER, FORMER NY STATE SUPREME COURT JUSTICE: Sure. A missing witness charge is where there is a witness that a party, in this case, presumably the People should have called, because they had relevant and material information that was non-cumulative, that the witness would give favorable information and the witness is available. Importantly, the defense has to ask for that charge, before the people rest. If they don't, it is untimely, and they will not get the charge, because you have to give the People a chance to say, OK, I'm going to call that witness. So, they might be entitled to a Weisselberg charge, based on that. But the truth is, you have -- he's available. They know where he is. He's in Rikers Island. They know that he has non-cumulative information. He can talk about that meeting. But in terms of favorability, which is we use the term control and favorability interchangeably, in New York law. COOPER: Yes. KONVISER: I don't know that he would give favorable -- favorable testimony. And I think that's what the People, they want to argue. COOPER: Well, when you say favorable testimony. I mean, it would be -- it would potentially be favorable to Donald Trump, wouldn't it? KONVISER: Right, it has to be favorable to the party calling that witness. COOPER: I see, OK. KONVISER: So, if it's not favorable to the People, they're not going to call him, and the defendant wouldn't be entitled to that missing witness-- COOPER: Got it. KONVISER: --choice. COOPER: Because with Allen Weisselberg, I mean, he could plead the Fifth, or he could not tell the truth. TOOBIN: Well that's my exact question is that if the prosecution knows that Allen Weisselberg would take the Fifth, is he actually a missing witness because they know he wouldn't testify? [21:50:00] KONVISER: Well, that's -- I think that's a very good question. And from my perspective, if I were the one there, I would be telling the People, if you want to avoid that missing witness charge? And of course, this may happen just before the People rest. Bring him in here. Bring him in here. Let's put him on the stand outside the presence of the jury. And I ask him, what are you going to say? We're going to ask you this question, this question, and this question. I'm taking the Fifth Amendment on the advice of counsel. And that becomes an unavailable witness, or I'm going to say, defense counsel -- I wasn't in that meeting, and Donald Trump is correct, then your witnesses are wrong. Then he is not a favorable witness, and then-- COOPER: And would he have to stick to that testimony? KONVISER: --they're not going to get him-- COOPER: Or could he change his mind when he's actually called in front of a jury? KONVISER: He could, I suppose. I don't think that would happen. But he could. COOPER: Yes. KONVISER: He sure could. COOPER: I mean, because Allen Weisselberg has gone to prison, and which is certainly, I mean, it's -- can be viewed as a favor to the-- PHILLIP: But the reason-- COOPER: --to Donald Trump. KONVISER: Right. But if he changes his testimony, then the defendant isn't going to get them as -- the defendant isn't going to get the benefit of the missing witness charge, at that point. COOPER: Right. PHILLIP: And the prosecution had wanted to put into evidence, the sort of separation agreement that he had, that basically said he couldn't say anything negative about the Trump Organization, about Trump, so. And they didn't get that. So, I think they were trying to make the case that, Allen Weisselberg wouldn't -- can't be trusted to testify truthfully, about Donald Trump, because he still has financial ties to the Trump Organization that's paying him. (CROSSTALK) COOPER: And he would be the only untrusty witness in the case, yes? PHILLIP: I mean, I mean. COLLINS: But also-- TOOBIN: Judge? COLLINS: --Keith Schiller, though is -- I mean, that severance agreement, he got paid $2 million. He could only cooperate with law enforcement, if he was subpoenaed, for Allen Weisselberg. Keith Schiller, Trump's body-man, who was the person on that call that night that caught Michael Cohen up, he is not in prison. He lives in Florida, I believe. When he left the White House, that's where he went at least. And so, that's the other question. If you're -- if I'm on the jury, I'm wondering, where is Allen Weisselberg? Because I haven't heard that he's in prison. Where is Keith Schiller? Because I haven't heard why he hasn't been on the witness list. KONVISER: But it's the same analysis. I don't think Keith Schiller is going to be in a position to offer favorable evidence to the People, and therefore they should have called that witness. But of course, the People have to make those noises in order to prevent the missing witness charge. And they -- I don't think they've done that. COOPER: Well this is a dumb question. Why can the defense -- the defense can call witnesses. Why can't they call Weisselberg? KONVISER: Well, they can. But they have no burden, right? So, they don't have to. They don't have to. HONIG: If it turns out that you would decide against giving the missing witness charge, because the testimony wouldn't be favorable, would you allow the defense to then stand up and say to the jury, argue to the jury, in closing, folks, where's Allen Weisselberg? Where's Keith Schiller? KONVISER: Yes. HONIG: You would allow that? KONVISER: Yes. RAY: Yes. TOOBIN: Can I -- can I ask you a question? RAY: That's why the instruction, I don't think really makes-- HONIG: Right. RAY: --at the end of the day that much difference. KONVISER: And the instruction is permissive. It's not-- RAY: Right. It doesn't -- it's such a weak instruction, in my experience. KONVISER: Yes. RAY: I'm not sure the jury pays as much attention to that, as they do the closing argument, where the defense stands up and says, hey, government has the burden of proof here. And you heard what's in that meeting. You never heard from this witness. KONVISER: Right. RAY: What does that tell you? KONVISER: That's right. RAY: About the People's case? TOOBIN: We've had a lot of talk about hung juries. You've been in the Center Street courthouse for -- you were in a very long time. Can you estimate what percentage of criminal cases end in hung juries? KONVISER: Very few. TOOBIN: Like 5 -- 1 percent? KONVISER: I don't know. I mean, I've handled-- TOOBIN: I mean, just an estimate? KONVISER: --dozens and dozens of cases, maybe hundreds. I don't think I had a hung jury. COOPER: Really? COLLINS: Wow. TOOBIN: OK. Well, that's a data point, right there. COOPER: And do you -- I mean, do you know, in the case of a hung jury, some people would say it usually takes two jurors to actually hang a jury? Because if it's just one? KONVISER: Then you can-- COOPER: Usually they get worn down. KONVISER: --twist them. COOPER: Is that? KONVISER: I don't know if that's true. COOPER: Yes. KONVISER: I've told you before though, I do talk to jurors, all of my jurors after, I always have a conversation with them. And I get a little bit of insight. And sometimes, I hear, well, we weren't so sure, and then, Juror Two said this, and I accepted it. So sometimes -- I don't get involved in their deliberations. But sometimes, they just tell me something. COOPER: Right. RAY: Could I just add one thing to that? COOPER: Yes. RAY: I think there's one exception to the general rule, and the judge is quite right. People have a super-belief in the fact that hung juries are actually a possible result, and that they happen with some regularity. They don't. I will say in high-profile cases, particularly ones with a lot of publicity? This obviously falls into those. Those are the places where you see them. COOPER: Yes. RAY: And that the rare situation happens in high-profile cases. HONIG: And-- RAY: That's -- at least that's been my experience. COOPER: Yes. HONIG: I may be no good. But I tried two cases that ended up in hung juries. And they were both high-profile, one was very high-profile. COLLINS: Very interesting justice (ph). KONVISER: Yes. TOOBIN: I had a low-profile case that ended in a hung jury. HONIG: There you go. COOPER: Yes. HONIG: There is -- as the judge knows, there is a lot of institutional pressure, in a good way, on the jury, to reach unanimity. I mean, if they give an indication, during their deliberation, if they send a note saying, Judge, we're having a problem? The judge will then eventually deliver what we call an Allen charge, meaning it is your job, if humanly possible, to reach unanimity. You need to all keep open minds. You need to get back in there, and get back to work. [21:55:00] RAY: Well I think juries take that seriously. HONIG: Yes. KONVISER: They -- they do. RAY: They follow them. HONIG: It works. RAY: I think they follow the-- KONVISER: They do. RAY: --judge's instructions about that. And I think they really do try to, to make a concerted effort, if at all possible, even if certain jurors are intending to go one way, to listen to their fellow jurors. COOPER: Yes. RAY: And to try to resolve it. KONVISER: Right. RAY: And arrive at a unanimous verdict, whatever that verdict is. (CROSSTALK) COOPER: I've been really struck by-- TOOBIN: --point. COOPER: --by Judge Merchan, and how sort of kind he is with the jury, and thoughtful he is about them, not only saying good morning, and things like that. But today, he was hoping to have court, next Wednesday. KONVISER: Wednesday. COOPER: But he said to the jury, I'd like to do court next Wednesday, but if even one of you, on this panel, has any conflict with that, and it would be a hardship, just let our bailiffs know when it -- during the next break, and we won't do it at all. And they came back and said the jury couldn't do it. KONVISER: A happy jury is a verdict-rendering jury. RAY: Yes. COLLINS: Can I also just say how the court staff has been so professional, and so great with handling-- COOPER: Yes. KONVISER: Yes. COLLINS: --such a high-profile case? They had to handle the Trump civil fraud case. But they really have been amazing-- COOPER: Yes, they have been. COLLINS: --in handling this. COOPER: It's-- KONVISER: The court officers are fabulous people. COOPER: Yes. COLLINS: Yes. COOPER: It's incredible to have the privilege of going into that courtroom, and watching it all. It's -- it really changes one's perspective. Thank you everyone. Great panels. The news continues. More of CNN's special coverage of the Trump hush money trial, right after this break. (COMMERCIAL BREAK) CNN NewsNight with Abby Phillip Aired May 16, 2024 - 22:00 ET THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED. (COMMERCIAL BREAK) [22:00:44] ABBY PHILLIP, CNN HOST: A game of risk that prosecution may have just lost. Good evening. I'm Abby Phillip in New York. Tonight, the Trump defense strategy was obvious from the jump. It was to paint Michael Cohen as a lying liar obsessed with revenge. But what was an open question as cross-examination started was whether the strategy would actually work. Of course, we won't know until the jury actually renders its verdict. But if anything may derail the government's case against Donald Trump, it might be what happened today. Todd Blanche, the lead lawyer for the former president, is on the attack. He's asserting that a phone call that Cohen claimed was about the Stormy Daniels payment wasn't made to Trump at all, but rather to Keith Schiller, who's Trump's bodyguard. And it was about something else entirely. Now, Cohen has claimed that the call drove directly at the heart of the case, that Donald Trump knew the intimate details about the $130,000 payment that Cohen would make to silence adult film actress Stormy Daniels. The defense instead said that it was about prank calls. And that was based on text messages that Cohen had sent Schiller fixating on the pranks of a 14-year-old just minutes before that phone call happened. Now, it is an alternative theory that threatens to collapse the prosecution's case like a wobbly Jenga tower. The defense highlighted Cohen's alleged lie after alleged lie to catch him, cast him as the opposite of a reformed truth teller. And they used Cohen's own words against him. They replayed portions of his podcast. The jury listened to Cohen in his heavily accented New York baritone. He promised to make sure that Trump rots. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) MICHAEL COHEN, FORMER TRUMP ATTORNEY: I truly (BLEEP) hope that this man ends up in prison. It won't bring back the year that I lost or the damage done to my family, but revenge is a dish best served cold. And you better believe I want this man to go down and rot inside for what he did to me and my family. (END VIDEO CLIP) PHILLIP: Joining us now, Nick Akerman, former assistant special Watergate prosecutor, Tim Parlatore, CNN Legal Commentator and former Trump attorney for -- former attorney for Donald Trump, Stacy Schneider is a criminal defense attorney and former Apprentice contestant, Joey Jackson, CNN legal analyst, and Donte Mills, civil and criminal attorney. We got enough lawyers, I think, at the desk here today, which is great because this is -- we're getting to the point where the lawyers are really necessary here. But, Joey and Donte, can you please walk us through some of the key parts of this cross-examination in all of your theatrical glory? JOEY JACKSON, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: No doubt. This was a big day today, I would say, for the defense, major revelation. So, let's get right to it. I will be the defense attorney. DONTE MILLS, CIVIL AND CRIMINAL ATTORNEY: I'm going to be Cohen, but I'm asking my family not to hold it against me. JACKSON: And so Blanche, and here, here it goes. When you testified on Tuesday that that you had a specific recollection that a one minute and 36-minute phone call on October 24th was not with Keith Schiller, he, of course, is the president's body man, right, bodyguard, that you called Keith Schiller and he posed and passed the phone to President Trump, you finalized the deal with Stormy Daniels and you said, we're going to move forward. And he said, yes, because you kept them informed all the time. That was your testimony, right? MILLS: That's correct. JACKSON: That was a lie. You were actually talking to Mr. Schiller about the fact that you were getting harassing phone calls from a 14- year-old, correct? MILLS: Part of it was the 14-year-old, but I know that Keith was with Mr. Trump at the time. And there was more than potentially just this. That's what I recall based upon the documents that I reviewed. JACKSON: Five minutes ago, I asked you if you remember harassing phone calls, and you said, no, and then I refreshed your recollection. It's totally fair if you don't remember, but now your testimony is that you were testifying truthfully on Tuesday, to a one minute and 36-second phone call, and you had enough time in that one minute and 36 seconds to update Mr. Schiller about all the problems you are having with these harassing phone calls and also update President Trump on the status of the Stormy Daniels situation because you had to keep him informed. [22:05:04] Because every time you made any decision, you ran it by the boss. That's your testimony? MILLS: I always ran everything by the boss immediately. And in this case, it could have just been saying everything is being taken care of. It's going to get resolved. JACKSON: That's not what you testified to on Tuesday. You said you had a recollection of a phone call on October 24th at 8:02 P.M. where you called Mr. Schiller and gave the phone to President Trump and you told President Trump about the updates, that you were moving forward with the funding and he said, okay, go. That was a lie. You did not talk to President Trump on that night. You talked to Keith Schiller about what we just went through. You can't admit that? MILLS: No, sir. I can't. I am not certain that is accurate. JACKSON: You were certain it was accurate on Tuesday when you were under oath and testifying. You were certain it was accurate. You had a phone call to President Trump, but now you were saying you are not certain it was accurate. MILLS: Based upon the records that I was able to review in light of everything that was going on, I believe I also spoke to Mr. President Trump and told him everything regarding the Stormy Daniels matter was being worked on, and it's going to be resolved. JACKSON: We're not asking for your belief. The jury doesn't want to hear what you think happened. So, Abby, this is a big deal, and I'll tell you why it's a big deal. So much of the prosecution's case has been predicated upon the notion of corroboration for everything that, of course, was testified to, right, by Michael Cohen. There's one critical component that has not been corroborated, and that is the details with respect to what he told Trump and whether Trump was aware of the nature, the purpose, the structure of this arrangement. Guess who was on this phone call when he was calling? It was either only Schiller or it was Trump. Trump is a defendant who doesn't have to testify so he can keep quiet and chill. I'm sure if you brought him in there, the body man, he'll say he was talking to me about the harassing for 14-year-old. And so this element of corroboration goes to a core issue in the case. The fact that the prosecutor didn't initially in direct examination, get out the fact that he could have been talking about a 14-year-old harasser in addition to updating the president is a big deal. I think it was a game changer. MILLS: And it was so easy to do. All they had to do is say, on that call, did you talk about anything else? Yes, we also talked about the 14-year-old, and none of this would have been a problem. But when you're relying on Cohen to seal the deal and fill in those gaps that you have in your case, and now you have a clear example of him probably lying or maybe lying about one of those gaps, I think that leaves some doubt there. PHILLIP: Either a major screw up by the prosecution, or if the jury views it as an intentional omission of important information, that's really problematic. STACY SCHNEIDER, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: It is. And to me it seems like a screw up by the prosecution. Like they should have caught -- NICK AKERMAN, FORMER ASSISTANT SPECIAL WATERGATE PROSECUTOR: This is ridiculous. This is such a minor little blip on the scheme of things. First of all, you can't ignore the fact that there are 250-some odd documents that basically back up what Cohen has said, what Pecker has said, what all of these various witnesses have said. One little phone call like this, this is not a gotcha moment. I mean, I had this happen before in a trial, where I had a guy who said he was at a certain place at a certain time for a meeting. I was able to get restaurant records that show, absolutely not. He was at a different place at a different time. This is not that kind of situation. SCHNEIDER: No, no, no, no, it's huge because -- well, wait, wait, wait, let me tell you why. It's a two-part crime. Falsifying business records, the felony in New York State requires that there's intent to falsify the records, and there has to be either the commission or the cover up of another crime. So, I will concede with you one point only, in that the prosecution did really well in establishing the other crime, which was perhaps election interference, perhaps even a tax fraud. That will come later. But Michael Cohen's act was established by all those other witnesses, David Pecker, whom you referred to. But now we come to the crux of the New York State Penal Code, which is, did Donald Trump have the intent to falsify the business records? With only Michael Cohen's testimony saying what Donald Trump knew or directed or ordered, that's the only thing the people have, the people meaning the people of the state of New York, what we call the prosecution. It is true. AKERMAN: No, it isn't true. They've got those records. You've got the notes of Weisselberg, where he's writing down the $420,000. PHILLIP: But the notes of Weisselberg are the notes of Weisselberg and Michael Cohen is the link between Allen Weisselberg and Donald Trump. And it is his word that is the bridge between those two men. AKERMAN: No, that's not right. McConney also identified those records, and he identified them as being in Weisselberg's handwriting. [22:10:02] PHILLIP: But he doesn't prove that Donald Trump knew about them. JACKSON: Listen, Weisselberg is not on trial. Mr. Trump is on trial. PHILLIP: And also if Weisselberg were on trial, it would be a closed case. SCHNEIDER: Weisselberg is not going to be called. Sorry to interrupt you, Abby, but there was after Tuesday's testimony, I believe, there was a conference with Judge Merchan and the attorneys about where is Weisselberg. It's almost like the Where is Waldo situation. And Weisselberg is now on Rikers Island serving a sentence for perjury. So, the prosecution has no incentive to bring him into this case. They already have an issue with Michael Cohen being an alleged perjurer or a perjurer, either alleged or unalleged. So, he's not coming in. So, the only tie to Donald Trump's knowledge at this point in the case, which is why this is such a big turning point, is Michael Cohn's testimony. So, if the jury doesn't buy the connection, and if they do rely on this phone call and it's not cleaned up properly by the prosecution, they got problems. PHILLIP: So, I want to read a little bit of the, just for context so people understand exactly what Michael Cohen said earlier this week. This was on Monday during direct with the prosecution. This is Susan Hoffinger. She says, why did you need to speak with Mr. Trump at that point in the evening on October 24th? Cohen says, to discuss the Stormy Daniels matter and the resolution of it. Hoffinger says, and did you have an understanding about whether during that conversation you resolved that you were moving forward to fund the deal. Cohen says, yes. So, he makes it a pretty hingy conversation where it's like he had this conversation where he knew that he could then move forward. If that conversation didn't happen, that becomes -- AKERMAN: But it doesn't make any difference. He just said he spoke to Trump and he spoke to Keith, the bodyguard. JACKSON: Here's why it makes a difference. If that was the issue, what you do, I think, in direct examination as the prosecutor, you say, sir, there came a time you made a phone call, right? He gets into the specific phone call, and in that phone call, tell us about it. Well, there was a 14-year-old harassing me, and I addressed that with the security personnel, but Trump was right there, and at that time I had a conversation. Nothing said about it. It's not said then, it's not said in the grand jury, but the defense has something to say. So now, all of a sudden, that wasn't the only thing I talked to him about, right? It was about the 14-year-old, and it was this. AKERMAN: So, what? JACKSON: Well, look, the bottom line is, I think you're doing exceptional lawyering, which is what they are going to have to do, right? That means the prosecution. AKERMAN: I don't think so. PHILLIP: I'm going to let Tim in. TIM PARLATORE, FORMER TRUMP ATTORNEY: See, that's the thing, is that there's a lot of corroboration for a lot of these, you know, other acts, but those are not the crimes. Those are not the elements of the crime. Look, what you're doing is exactly what prosecutors we would expect them to do. They would say look at all the corroboration of all this other stuff. But since that's not the elements of the crime, the actual elements that they need to prove is his personal involvement, his personal knowledge. They've corroborated Michael Cohen's involvement. They've corroborated Allen Weisselberg's involvement. But to actually connect it to Trump, they need the contents of these phone calls, which we now know Michael Cohen lied about. AKERMAN: Well, you can't say he lied about it. At best, he was mistaken about another issue that came up at the time. Clearly, at that time, if you look at all the circumstances, what was going on in terms of Stormy Daniels, he had to get his permission to pull the trigger on that deal. MILLS: You can't hinge everything on that conversation. They said, well, we know we have to prove that Trump knew. Well, Cohen, you're on the stand. How do we know? How do we know Trump knew? Well, on this particular call, I told him, this is the call where I got permission. Now, that call was about something else, at least. So, he hinged everything on that call, and now that call is in doubt. AKERMAN: Everything is not hinged on that call. It's also other conversations, other meetings, where it was basically decided at that point how this money was going to be paid out. SCHNEIDER: Right. But the only problem with the -- AKERMAN: Trump signed all these checks. PHILLIP: Look, just one second, just one second, because I do think that there is a point to be made here that, again, it doesn't really matter whether or not Donald Trump had a conversation with Michael Cohen about whether Michael Cohen was actually going to pay Stormy Daniels. Because to your point, that is not what he's charged with. However, and this is what I think you've got to address, Michael Cohen's credibility is on the table here as it relates to another big part of this, which is at the end, when they are deciding what to pay him and how to structure it. And he is the person who says that Donald Trump knew about that. He's the only person who is saying that. AKERMAN: Well, it's also Donald Trump who signs this thing. It's also Donald Trump on tape, who knows about the whole scheme when he's talking about Karen McDougal. You can't just look at this in isolation. MILLS: None of that's the evidence. PARLATORE: Because the problem with that is, yes, he signed the check, but did he put the annotation into the book? No. AKERMAN: He doesn't have to. Under the law, you don't have to. PARLATORE: No. But it's a false business records case. And so the false business record is not the signature on the check. It's the annotation of what the check is for. Because if -- AKERMAN: It's the invoice. It's the invoice that goes along with the check, which is stapled to the check. [22:15:02] And that's what he saw when he signed each and every one of those checks. SCHNEIDER: But don't you think Trump is going to come forward? This is Trump's defense without him taking the stand or saying it? I was in D.C. Michael Cohen didn't get paid until 2017 when those checks started going out. I was in D.C. running the country. I was not dealing with the Trump Organization in New York. Whatever they did over there, Allen Weisselberg did it. And he knows Allen Weisselberg isn't coming into court because he's in jail right now. So, he's got the perfect out and it just got confirmed. I'm not saying the out will win with the jury, because there was -- I agree with you, there was corroboration on the catch and kill scheme and all those people, but the crux of the charge is did Trump have the intent to falsify the business records of the Trump Organization. And, wait, I have one more point that people might think is obvious. You know, if you think about this whole thing, why is Trump in trouble here? He could have done a side deal with Michael Cohen, who is his private attorney, who wasn't really even working for the Trump Organization anymore at that point in time. Trump was transitioning, you know, he was on the campaign. He could have just said, Michael, let's take care of this between the two of us. And, you know, I'll give you the money, whatever. Take care of it. But what happened here is that money allegedly was run through the business records, almost like a tax deduction, like taking your family out to dinner for a business meal and then running it through your business. AKERMAN: It was more than a tax deduction. It was like it was grossed up. I mean, they could have just reimbursed Cohen and they didn't. I mean, Trump had to know that this thing was all screwed up and it was done in a way to hide all of this. PHILLIP: Here's a question about defense what they do at this point. Maybe this was a slam dunk for the defense, but they have a choice now. Do they continue? Do they put on their part of this? Or do they just rest and let the jury sit with this and go into deliberations? I mean, they don't have the burden of proof here, but do they want to leave it to chance, or do they need to call some extra witnesses to further break down Michael Cohen's credibility? SCHNEIDER: I have an opinion on it. JACKSON: Well, listen, I say I'm always less is more, and, you know, there's things that should be left unsaid and left alone. And the other thing that concerns me, Abby, very much, is that remember, right, what happened here is that the Federal Election Commission was told, based upon Michael Cohen's information, that Donald Trump was not involved, that the Trump Organization was not involved, that he paid it all by himself. And so which one is it? In 2018, through your lawyer, you're giving the indication, right, when a special interest group comes along and say, wait, this is a finance problem, it's a finance problem. He goes on record, that is Mr. Cohen saying, Trump had nothing at all to do with it. I did it all myself. He has no knowledge or understanding. But now it's all on Trump. Those things concern me. MILLS: He's an attorney. So, they also show that now he hates Trump. He said he wants to put Trump in jail. He knows what he would have to say to make that happen. He knows what gaps had to be filled in. He has to prove that Trump had knowledge. So, if he knows he has to do that, he can say, oh, no, I told Trump on this phone call, because he knows he has to do that. Now, they show that that call may not have happened. So, I think it's, it'll be fairly easy to convince the jury that this attorney is now lying to fill in the gaps so Trump can get in trouble. SCHNEIDER: That will be the defense's case. But can I just point to one point that you were asking about, what should the defense do? And I agree with Joey, less is always more. But I think, based on some signaling from Donald Trump during his alleged gag order violations when he kept talking about Michael Cohen and why am I indicted, all I did -- all they did was take an invoice from a lawyer, Michael Cohen, and they put it on the books and now I'm in court being indicted. So, they really need to distance him from this whole thing. So, all they could do is bring in somebody else from the Trump Organization because the D.A., the prosecutor already brought in two people from the Trump Organization to talk about the controller and talk about how the books work. But if they could just bring someone in to say or even imply Trump didn't tell us how to put this in the books. And then if you keep working with Michael Cohen and not connecting that through Trump, they have a good chance of beating the case through that situation. That's my defense theory. PARLATORE: So, one way of doing that also is Weisselberg. He's not being called. So, they're going to get a missing witness charge for him. PHILLIP: Well, they won't. PARLATORE: That's the issue. PHILLIP: They won't because -- JACKSON: An unavailable witness charge. PHILLIP: Yes. And he's -- you would have to prove -- PARLATORE: He's available. PHILLIP: You would have to prove he would be a favorable witness. AKERMAN: The judge last week said he might bring him in and actually force him to take the Fifth if that's what he's going to do. SCHNEIDER: But the judge was kind of running that by the lawyers and both sides, I read that whole colloquy between the judge and lawyers on both sides, they're like, he's not good for either one of them. PHILLIP: He's a hot potato, nobody wants him. SCHNEIDER: He's got problems for both sides. And they kept saying, even Emil Bove kept saying, Trump's counsel, Judge, this is -- Allen Weisselberg is a complicated witness, a complicated witness. [22:20:01] PHILLIP: Yes. And he is -- SCHNEIDER: I don't think it's going to -- PHILLIP: He is in prison. He is in prison for perjury. Yes. So, there's that. Everyone, stick around. Tonight, there's a word that the Trump defense may call a surprise witness, and his name is Bob Costello. How his testimony could end up delivering a bizarre twist to this case. Plus, why President Biden is asserting executive privilege to keep the public from hearing tapes about himself. And It's got a lot of you talking tonight. Did a Supreme Court justice fly a Stop the Steal flag at his home after January 6th? We have the details ahead. (COMMERCIAL BREAK) [22:25:05] PHILLIP: Credible, or a crock of you know what? You can boil the Trump case down to that binary choice and which way the jury will ultimately feel about Michael Cohen. Entering today, Donald Trump's defense seemed poised to call one witness or no witnesses at all, the former president of the United States. Now, the defense is considering calling Bob Costello. According to a source familiar with Trump's legal team's strategy, Costello can offer a clear cut contradiction to Cohn's narrative. And you don't have to look far at all to see a preview of what that former attorney might say about his former client. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) ROBERT COSTELLO, ATTORNEY: He kept on bringing up the subject that he felt he was betrayed by not being brought down to Washington D.C. This guy thought, he said to me, that he should have been attorney general of the United States or at least the chief assistant to the president. Ludicrous, but that's what he thought. And he was very angry about that. He wanted to do something to put himself back into the inner circle of Donald Trump. That's why he took care of this on his own. (END VIDEO CLIP) PHILLIP: Now, that was Costello testifying before the House Judiciary Subcommittee. My panel is back with me here. So, Tim, first of all, very bizarre to see a former attorney go into Congress to testify against his client, but then again, that's what Michael Cohen did with Donald Trump, so there's that. But what do you really think Bob Costello has to offer here or is it not worth opening this particular can of worms? PARLATORE: I think he has something pretty significant. During the direct testimony earlier this week, Michael Cohen talked about how Bob Costello and Rudy Giuliani were dangling a pardon in front of him to keep him loyal to the president. That's the same story that he told to the Southern District of New York U.S. Attorney's Office. They opened a criminal investigation into Bob Costello and Rudy Giuliani for witness tampering for that. They called Bob Costello in, and he brought in all the emails, all the text messages. He sat with them and showed them how not only did that not happen, but Michael Cohn was begging repeatedly for a pardon to have, you know, Bob Costello asked Rudy Giuliani, and when Rudy Giuliani went and came back and said, the president says he doesn't want to talk to anybody about pardons, and he doesn't want it brought up again, that's when all of a sudden Michael Cohen goes in to meet with the U.S. attorney about trying to cooperate. PHILLIP: So, just to back up what you're saying, here's what Cohen said that he interpreted Bob Costello's communications to him to mean. This is not exactly what he said, but this is what Cohen says he thought it meant. And this is part of the pressure campaign, that everyone is lying to you, that you are still regarded, the president still supports you. Do not speak. Do not listen to what any of the journalists or anybody are saying and stay in the fold. Don't flip. Don't speak. Don't cooperate. That's how he characterized it to the jury in court earlier this week. PARLATORE: And how he characterized it to the U.S. Attorney's Office, and then based on the information that Bob Costello gave them, that's why the U.S. attorney's office dropped him as a cooperating witness. PHILLIP: So, would this be a big risk for the defense to call Bob Costello? Because, I mean, I hear what you're saying, but the communications, some of them, are not great for Bob Costello at the end of the day. AKERMAN: He's got real problems here. But I think what really happened here was that Bob Costello was brought in by Rudy Giuliani. They're very, very close. Bob was basically one of the bundlers for his mayoral campaign when Rudy ran for mayor the first time. They were in the U.S. attorney's office together. And I think what Michael Cohen was doing at the time, that's when he was in his total lying mode, because he was trying to ingratiate himself for the Trump people and stay within the fold. He was trying to get them to pay for his attorney's fees and he was trying to make it appear as though he was still a member of the Trump team. And so what Bob Costello knows is that. I mean, that's what Bob Costello was told. And so what he's saying is basically what was meant for Trump's ears. And if you really kind of break down what these so called lies are that were brought out during the cross-examination, a lot of them really have to do with just towing the line for Donald Trump and lying for Trump. SCHNEIDER: Can I ask a quick question about Bob Costello, because I've heard him be described as Michael Cohen's lawyer? I think Michael Cohen said during testimony he was a legal adviser. PHILLIP: He never had a retainer, was never actually paid for his services. AKERMAN: He's not his lawyer. SCHNEIDER: But isn't that a very dangerous line for a lawyer to walk, because he's disclosing attorney -- what would be conceived as attorney-client relationship. PARLATORE: He's not. Because what happened is Michael Cohen went to hire him. He was not brought on by Rudy Giuliani. That's, you know, been a false rumor. He actually -- Michael Cohen has a long time relationship with Jeff Citron, who is Bob's partner. He went to Citron who said, well, I'm not really a criminal lawyer. [22:30:01] May I bring in Bob. They had several meetings, they were going through the beauty pageant of, you know, are we going to hire you, am I going to hire somebody else? He ultimately decided not to hire them for the case. But when he accused them to the U.S. Attorney's Office, the U.S. Attorney's Office had him sign an unconditional privilege waiver. And it was only because of that unconditional privilege waiver and the accusation that he made against Bob that the U.S. Attorney's Office found was totally unfounded, that's why he's able to talk about this stuff. So I don't see any parallel whatsoever to Bob. PHILLIP: We only have 30 seconds, but Tim, I know that you've been in touch with him. PARLATORE: Yeah. I spoke to him yesterday. PHILLIP: Okay, so does he want to testify? Has he been asked to? Is there any indication that he's preparing to be in that witness booth? PARLATORE: I know that he would like to testify as to whether he's going to. You know, I would leave that to the Trump team. JACKSON: Does it move the needle, Tim? Does it move the needle? He say, he say. MILLS: And why is he so motivated to be a part of it and testify? Yes, why is he so patriotic about that? As our profession, we're all lawyers up here. We have to take that serious. We can't go up there and say, oh, my client waived privilege, so here's every conversation we had. Why would we be motivated to do that? I just don't understand. PARLATORE: There's a couple of reasons. One is because he accused Bob of a crime. Two is that when he saw all the lies that Cohen was saying, he actually went to both the Trump team and Alvin Bragg to provide them with this information. Alvin Bragg refused to meet with him. He did go before the grand jury. He gave them all the emails. SCHNEIDER: Trump's people called him. JACKSON: This is so off point. It's so collateral. It's so off point. It's like, what are we doing here? PHILLIP: This is, if nothing, a trial that is all about some shady lawyering. A lot thereof. Everyone, thank you very much. After years of defending Donald Trump, asserting executive privilege, Republicans are suddenly very outraged when Joe Biden does it. We'll show you the tape. Plus, a wild report tonight. Did the home of a Supreme Court justice, Samuel Alito, fly a stop the steal flag after January 6th? The reporter who broke that huge story joins me next. (COMMERCIAL BREAK) [22:36:39] PHILLIP: A calling card for insurrectionists flying in plain view outside of the house of an associate justice of the Supreme Court of the United States. Tonight, the "New York Times" published a report capturing, through the interviews and photos, an upside down American flag hoisted outside of Samuel Alito's home in Alexandria, Virginia. The pictures are from January 17th, 2021, 11 days after rioters stormed the U.S. Capitol to stop Congress from certifying the 2020 election. Now, Alito publishing a full stop denial in response to the report saying, quote, "I had no involvement whatsoever in the flying of the flag". It was briefly placed by Mrs. Alito in response to a neighbor's use of objectionable and personally insulting language on yard signs. Now, we haven't yet heard from the Supreme Court about all of this. But what is missing from Alito's response? A denial that it happened at all, much less remorse or regret that it did. Also missing, any disavowal of the symbol claimed by those who sought to overthrow the government. Joining us now, Jodi Kantor. She is the New York Times correspondent who broke this massive story tonight. Jodi, how on earth? I have a lot of questions for you. I'm curious about how this happened, but I'm also curious about how you found out about it. JODI KANTOR, CORRESPONDENT, "NEW YORK TIMES": Well, first of all, thank you for having me. Let's start with the reaction of the people who saw the flag. Neighbors were also filtered back to the Supreme Court. And all they're seeing is this upside down flag, which at the time was one of the symbols of the Stop the Steal campaign. We're talking about the period just after January 6th, but also three days before President Biden's inauguration. So people are just kind of stupefied by it. First of all, it's a very controversial gesture to turn the flag upside down. But also a very basic thing about federal judges that everybody knows is that they are supposed to appear totally fair and impartial. They aren't supposed to participate in politics or sort of do anything to even suggest the appearance that they're not going to handle something fairly. So the first thing people felt was really just very great surprise. And this wasn't up there for just 10 minutes. What neighbors say is that it was there for a few days. PHILLIP: Yeah. I mean, okay. So I'm going to go back to the statement here from Mr. Alito or Justice Alito. He says it was briefly placed by Mrs. Alito in response to a neighbor's use of objectionable and personally insulting language. Briefly is doing a lot of work there. I wouldn't characterize a couple of days as that, especially in that time period that you described. But the other thing is, I mean, the court's rule book about the conduct of employees is pretty specific. You cannot publicly oppose or support partisan political organizations or candidates. Bumper stickers are off limits, stating political positions on social media. They may not engage in nonpartisan political activity if the activity could reflect adversely on the dignity or impartiality on the court. That's clear for employees. The wife of a Supreme Court justice, if you were to take the statement at face value, maybe another story, but if it's flying outside of the home, how is anybody supposed to know? [22:40:03] KANTOR: That's why judicial ethics experts are concerned. They say that, they say that, okay, let's take this story at face value. Let's say it was Mrs. Alito. These rules are still about the appearance of impropriety. And that's because it's about trust in the system. For democracy to work, we all need to respect these institutions. We all need to feel that they're fair. And any action that creates doubt in that is a negative thing. And that's especially true given what's happening now. Everybody's focusing, I understand why, on the proximity to January 20th, the inauguration, January 6th. But I want to point out that at this moment, we are waiting for the Supreme Court to rule on two blockbuster January 6th cases that are really going to shape accountability for those actors, including former President Trump. They're going to shape the legacy of January 6th, and they may even help determine the course of the next election. So one of the questions is, when these decisions come out, will Americans react to them with a sense of trust and respect? And even if I disagree with this, I believe it was decided fairly. PHILLIP: I mean, there's no question there has been an erosion in the trust in the court. I mean, again, taking the statement at face value, let's say it was Mrs. Alito. You would have Mrs. Alito and Mrs. Thomas both, perhaps, espousing beliefs about, strong beliefs about something that is before the court, issues that are before the court. And neither of those individuals have recused. The recusal rules seem, basically, I mean, it's more or less up to the justices' discretion. Is that about right? KANTOR: So it's interesting. It's a binding federal statute, so it does apply to Supreme Court justices. The court has said that it's for individual justices to determine. I think the question of whether this fact pattern is a cause for recusal is something for the experts to debate. We just broke this news tonight, and I'm curious to see how the legal world reacts. But there are a number of issues. There are kind of the recusal issues about whether he should participate in this case. And there's the question of the code of conduct for judges, and whether this behavior meets that bar. And if not, what anybody can do about it, because the Supreme Court, by definition, is the last word, and nobody else supervises the justices. PHILLIP: Yeah, that's why the appearance of impropriety is so problematic there. What's amazing, Jodi, is also, I mean, this being scuttlebutt for basically four years in that neighborhood and among the court, and then finally coming out when it did. Thank you for joining us with all of this reporting. And up next for us, a shouting match interrupting between Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Marjorie Taylor Greene on Capitol Hill. We'll show you what happened. (COMMERCIAL BREAK) [22:47:37] PHILLIP: They are the audiotapes at the center of the decision not to charge President Biden in the investigation of the classified documents that were found at his home. Well, tonight the president is asserting executive privilege to keep those recordings secret. Now, you'll remember that special counsel Robert Hur described Biden as well-meaning, elderly man with poor memory, and decided that a jury would be sympathetic, ultimately. Now, the White House took issue with that description, and the transcripts of the interview were made public. But the tapes have now become the center of a fight with House Republicans. In fact, they want to hold the attorney general in contempt for refusing to release them. The Justice Department cites privacy and a clear political motivation on the part of Republicans. Now, let's keep in mind, CNN has also sued for access to these tapes, since journalists do want access to access as much information as possible. We want to hear the tapes, and we want you, the taxpayer and the citizen, to hear them, too. But what's curious politically is that when it comes to the issue of executive privilege, Republicans are suddenly critics. This is after Donald Trump and his allies spent years making this argument. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) UNKNOWN: Executive privilege serves the public interest. It's for us. It's for we, the people. SEN. MITCH MCCONNELL (R-KY): The concept of executive privilege is another two-century-old constitutional tradition. DONALD TRUMP, FORMER U.S. PRESIDENT: There are things that you can't do from the standpoint of executive privilege. You have to maintain that. UNKNOWN: Now they're destroying executive privilege. Now they're attacking that. And this might be the worst. Destroying a president that has been around since George Washington. LAURA INGRAHAM, FOX NEWS HOST: So you're going to invoke executive privilege? TRUMP: Well, I think you have to for the sake of the office. SARAH HUCKABEE SANDERS, THEN-WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY: The president's power to assert executive privilege is very well established. TRUMP: To me, for the future, we have to protect presidential privilege. UNKNOWN: You have presidential executive privilege. You have attorney- client privilege. Apparently that doesn't mean much anymore at the DOJ. The privilege that's not his to waive, it belongs to the president. The privilege that the court said is critical to executive decision-making. TRUMP: We have to protect presidential privilege for me, but for future presidents. (END VIDEO CLIP) PHILLIP: Future presidents like his successor and the current occupant of the White House and his opponent in the 2024 race. [22:50:01] Also on Capitol Hill, who says that there's no fighting in the hearing room? Well, tonight, House Oversight Committee markup suddenly turned into a deeply personal name-calling match between Democrat Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Republican Marjorie Taylor Greene. Listen. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) REP. MARJORIE TAYLOR-GREENE (R-GA): Do you know what we're here for? REP. ALEXANDRIA OCASIO-CORTEZ (D-NY): You know we're here. TAYLOR-GREENE: I don't think you know what you're here for. OCASIO-CORTEZ: Well, you're the one talking about. TAYLOR-GREENE: I think your fake eyelashes are messing up. REP. STEPHEN LYNCH (D-MA): Order, Mr. Chairman. (Inaudible) please. REP. JAMES COMER (R-KY), HOUSE OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE CHAIRMAN: There's a point of order. UNKNOWN: We have a point of order. COMER: Mr. Lynch, state your point. LYNCH: Mr. Chairman, I would just like to ask the parliamentarian if your conduct here in raising money in connection with this hearing is referable to the ethics committee within this hearing. Is the motion in order to refer your conduct and your abuse of -- UNKNOWN: It's not a point of order. OCASIO-CORTEZ: Mr., I do have a point of order, and I would like to move to take down Ms. Greene's words. That is absolutely unacceptable. How dare you attack the physical appearance of another person? TAYLOR-GREENE: Are your feelings hurt? OCASIO-CORTEZ: Move her words down. Oh, girl. Baby girl. TAYLOR-GREENE: Oh, really? OCASIO CORTEZ: Don't even play with me. TAYLOR-GREENE: Baby girl, I don't think -- OCASIO-CORTEZ: We are going to move and we're going to take your words down. UNKNOWN: I second that motion. (END VIDEO CLIP) PHILLIP: Wow. Well, next, if you could take a test to determine your risk of getting Alzheimer's, would you? Dr. Sanjay Gupta decided to hear what the answers were to that test, hear what he discovered about himself next. (COMMERCIAL BREAK) [22:56:24] PHILLIP: Right now, nearly 7 million Americans are living with Alzheimer's dementia. For decades, researchers have tried and failed to come up with a way to effectively treat Alzheimer's. But now there are some new tools to battle this disease. And CNN's chief medical correspondent, Dr. Sanjay Gupta, spent five years investigating these scientific breakthroughs in a new documentary called "The Last Alzheimer's Patient". It premieres on Sunday, May 19th, on "The Whole Story". Here's a preview. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) DR. SANJAY GUPTA, CNN CHIEF MEDICAL CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): In the five years of making this documentary- GUPTA: The 20-year-old newlyweds. That's right. GUPTA (voice-over): I've met with patients all around the country who were diagnosed or at high risk for this devastating disease. GUPTA: Do you remember this time in your life, Mike? GUPTA (voice-over): It made me really start to think about my own brain. I have a family history of Alzheimer's as well. Sometimes I feel a little rusty. Sometimes I worry that I make mistakes that maybe my friends and family are too polite to tell me about. UNKNOWN: I'm going to look at your body composition. GUPTA (voice-over): So that's why I decided to do something quite personal. UNKNOWN: Your muscle mass, your body fat. GUPTA (voice-over): Quite revealing. UNKNOWN: That wasn't quite right. GUPTA (voice-over): I went through a battery of tests to assess my own risk. UNKNOWN: Just like we get a cholesterol test every year and check your blood pressure. Got to do the same thing for the brain. GUPTA (voice-over): And what did I find? UNKNOWN: I'll just say it. (END VIDEO CLIP) PHILLIP: Joining me now is Dr. Sanjay Gupta. He's also a neurosurgeon. Sanjay, first of all, I'm not quite buying that you're a little rusty. You seem pretty all there to me. GUPTA: I don't know. Every now and then. But, I mean, it's so interesting. I didn't even know that younger people could do tests like this. Do you think other people should do what you did and test their Alzheimer's risk? GUPTA: I don't think that it's necessarily for the masses as of yet, Abby. And I think just even a few years ago, the common sort of question was, look, if I get these tests, what can I do about it? What difference is it going to make? I think that's the part of the equation that's starting to change. It's become clear that there are things that can be done in terms of reducing the likelihood you'll progress, maybe even changing your overall outcome in the long run. So I think we're going to see these tests become more common, kind of like Richard Isaacson was saying. They're like a cholesterol test or testing your PSA, for example. PHILLIP: Yeah, I mean, the question of what can be done is so crucial to this. I mean, you spend so much time in this documentary with people whose Alzheimer's symptoms were actually reversed. How is that even possible? What does the science show about that? GUPTA: Look, this surprised me as well, to be very clear. I want to be very careful because I think we're still sort of at the nascent stages of understanding what we can actually do in terms of modifying the brain. I sort of think we are where we were with heart disease 50, 60 years ago. 50, 60 years ago, you say someone has heart disease, that's it. Abby, you have it. You're going to have it. It may lead to a heart attack. The idea that you could reverse it through lifestyle changes wasn't something that was widely accepted. That's the stage that we're at now with the brain. So I think the answer is yes. And I saw that. One of the advantages of doing a documentary over five years is you can follow people over that time. And I saw people who were diagnosed with Alzheimer's, who were on the steady decline, and then five years later were living a much more normal life. So I want to be careful. I don't want to have this unbridled sort of optimism about it. But look, it was pretty exciting to see what happened to these folks. [23:00:00] PHILLIP: That is exciting. It definitely means folks need to tune in when this documentary airs. Sanjay, thank you so much. GUPTA: You got it, Abby. Thank you. And don't miss it. Sanjay's full documentary, "The Last Alzheimer's Patient", premieres this Sunday, May 19th, at 8 p.m. Eastern on "The Whole Story", only on CNN and on Max. And thank you for watching "Newsnight". "Laura Coates Live" starts right now. Laura Coates Live Aired May 16, 2024 - 23:00 ET THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED. [23:00:00] … (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) DONALD TRUMP, FORMER PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: Thank you very much. I think it was a very interesting day. It was a fascinating day. And I just want to thank all the lawyers involved because they've been really working hard. (END VIDEO CLIP) LAURA COATES, CNN HOST: Well, if the goal today was to please the client, well, consider them pleased. Welcome to a special edition of "Laura Coates Live," on Day 18 of Donald Trump's criminal trial, a trial that has had a lot of numbers to keep up with, right? I mean, 34, the number of the felony counts against Trump for falsifying business records, 130,000, the amount of dollars Stormy Daniels was actually paid to keep quiet. But the number that might be sticking with the jury tonight is, well, 96, the 96 seconds of a critical October 2016 phone call that is now in question. On Monday, Cohen testified that he made that October call to Trump's bodyguard, a man by the name of Keith Schiller, to try to talk to Trump. The whole point of that call? To tell Trump that he was planning to pay off Stormy Daniels. Now, from Tuesday's transcript, here was the question: Why did you need to speak with Mr. Trump at that point in the evening of October 25th? Cohen then responded, to discuss the Stormy Daniels matter and the resolution of it. Now, that testimony is important to the prosecution's allegations that Trump directed Cohen to pay off Stormy Daniels. But today, today, the defense took a sledgehammer to that story. They suggested that Cohen may have made it all up. They referenced texts that Cohen sent before making that phone call. And in those texts, Cohen was complaining about a teenager who was prank-calling him. Cohen texted Schiller -- quote -- "Who can I speak to regarding harassing calls to my cell and office?" Schiller responds, call me. From the transcript, Blanche says about that call -- quote -- "That was a lie, you were actually talking to Mr. Schiller about the fact that you were getting harassing phone calls from a 14-year-old, correct?" Cohen responds, part of it was the 14-year-old, but I know that Keith was with Mr. Trump at the time and there was more than potentially just this. That's what I recall based upon the documents that I reviewed. Now, keep in mind, the jurors have also had it drilled into their heads that Cohen is a liar and is out for revenge. The defense played his own words from his own podcast to make that point. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) MICHAEL COHEN, FORMER DONALD TRUMP'S ATTORNEY (voice-over): Revenge is a dish best served cold and you better believe I want this man to go down and rot inside for what he did to me and my family. (END VIDEO CLIP) COATES: That music in the background was part of his podcast. I did not add it for dramatic effect, although I do add dramatic effect of things. The defense also may not be done hammering Cohen's credibility, and sources tell CNN that Trump's team next week, they may call a witness. Cohen's former attorney, Robert Costello, as that witness. Now, why? Because he is ready to say that Cohen, yes, his former client, is lying. I want to bring in a reporter who was in court today, law enforcement reporter for "The Washington Post," Devlin Barrett. Devlin, so good to see you. I have got to know how that moment was playing out in the courtroom. The inability to actually have eyes and ears for the general audience is so frustrating because I want to know, like, was the jury leaning in? Did they get the nuance that people have been talking about all over the airwaves? What was that moment like over this phone call? DEVLIN BARRETT, LAW ENFORCEMENT REPORTER, WASHINGTON POST: It was very dramatic, so dramatic you did not need dramatic podcast music to know it was dramatic. (LAUGHTER) So, at that moment -- you know, Todd Blanche, Trump's lawyer, has been very calm and measured through most of this questioning. But at that moment, he's really just screaming at Michael Cohen, and he's state court screaming. He's not federal court screaming, he's state court screaming. COATES: Hmm. BARRETT: And I thought it was very effective, I think, to an average person. The idea that the defense laid out here, that this was about harassing phone calls, actually made a lot of sense. Now, the prosecution will try, I'm sure, when they get to question Cohen again, to repair that, but I think a lot of damage was done to Michael Cohen today. COATES: How about the fact that it was a 14-year-old who was allegedly harassing him? [23:05:02] I mean, when I saw that come in, in terms of the reporters in the courtroom, a part of me had to pause for a moment and then catch back up, thinking, wait, are we talking about a teenager was harassing you? Is that why you called the president's bodyguard? BARRETT: Right. And there was a series of texts that they showed into evidence preceding his text with Schiller where essentially what they said was that this person who had been harassing him accidentally did it without blocking their caller ID at one time. So, that's how Cohen knew who it was. Cohen starts angrily threatening them, texting them back, saying, you've got to stop this. And the person on the other end says, I'm just 14, I'm sorry, I didn't -- my friend told me to. There's no way of knowing if that person is actually 14, to be clear. COATES: Uh-hmm. BARRETT: Um, you know, it's just one of the dumbest things. And it's also, I've got to be honest, it's a very Michael Cohen thing to get in an argument with a 14-year-old and then have that become like part of a criminal case. So, you know, again, this -- again, this was not his finest day. The one good saving grace for Michael Cohen in all this is that he did stay calm. He was flustered in that moment. He seemed to sort of like take a moment to try to figure out what his next answer would be, but then, he did come up with an answer that at least was coherent. COATES: Well, look, Devlin, I've been a 14-year-old girl. You didn't want none. BARRETT: No, nobody does. COATES: It was an old thing. These movies made about it. I was not a mean girl. I'll bring my panel into this and get myself out of trouble for a second. Devlin, stay around. We've got criminal defense lawyer Brandi Harden with us, former Trump attorney Jim Trusty, CNN legal analyst and former deputy assistant attorney general for legislative affairs, Elliot Williams is here as well. Okay, I'm not going to ask anyone here about themselves as 14. But I do want to ask Brandi, beginning with you. We know that Blanche, who is the defense counsel leading this cross, this was a cross of a lifetime in terms of the expectations. You have to land punches, and solid ones because they believe that this all hinges on whether the jury believes him. Tuesday, I mean, Vaseline was on the face of Michael Cohen. He didn't land a punch. Did he do it today? BRANDI HARDEN, CRIMINAL DEFENSE LAWYER: Absolutely. Credibility is destroyed, I think, in some ways. I think some of the things that Michael Cohen said and the repeated times that the lawyer was able to catch him in lies, I think that they absolutely landed punches today that they didn't necessarily land yesterday. So, I do think, once your credibility is sort of lost, the government will do what they can to try to get it back. But I think they landed punches. I think there were things that make the jury look at Michael Cohen in a certainly different light and will say, we know that he has told several lies, and so why would we necessarily rely on him in terms of deciding this case in favor one way or the other because it's clear that he's making some things up? COATES: Now, it's a difference between the lies that he's being impeached with in terms of actual convictions, some about tax evasions, some about campaigns and, of course, now this question that he was asked, in part, about whether he took accountability for those guilty pleas. That was a moment where he could have just said something like, I pled guilty, I own up to it, and moved on. He was really defiant and seemed to be very defensive about his guilty pleas. JIM TRUSTY, FORMER TRUMP ATTORNEY: He wants to have live perjury to go with the historical perjury. COATES: Hmm. I mean, it's really kind of amazing. And I think, you know, we may see this play out with Bob Costello. Costello may well get into the opinion of his truthfulness and just say in probably an inimitable way that Bob will come up with that. I'm not knowledgeable about -- COATES: Before you go on, though, I think people -- we heard about Bob Costello. This is not really a household name for a lot of people for many reasons, all the names, people who have been listed. Who exactly is Bob Costello? And why would it be the case that if he was the attorney of Cohen, he can talk about him? TRUSTY: Right. He is a New York lawyer for 51 years, no rookie, very street smart, very kind of prototypical New York brash lawyer. He and his partner were representing Cohen. And the substance that really is devastating in terms of rebuttal -- potential rebuttal testimony is that Cohen was on the hook with the Southern District of New York, and this lawyer pushed him, saying, if there's something you can do to cooperate, if you can give us anything on President Trump, I can get you out of all your trouble. COATES: Hmm. TRUSTY: And he's a former SDNY prosecutor, so he kind of knows the terrain. And he will say, and he said this in front of the Hill the other day, at the Hill, that I must have pressed him 20 times with, do you have something you can say about Trump doing something dirty? COATES: Uh-hmm. TRUSTY: And what he got every time from Cohen was, I swear to God, I'm not sure he knows who God is, but I swear to God that there's nothing, there's absolutely nothing. And so, what happened in the context of that failed cooperation, because ultimately it did fail entirely, was Cohen decided, well, I'm going to go to SDNY and tell them Costello and Giuliani are dangling a pardon from Trump in front of me. COATES: That came up today. TRUSTY: Right. And it's going to come up again, I have a feeling. And so, they basically said, it's an outrageous lie, never happened. [23:10:00] And in the course of that failed cooperation, the Southern District asked Cohen to waive his attorney-client privilege so they could talk to Costello. And when they talked to Costello, he apparently convinced them, this is a sinking ship, get off. But he never had the opportunity to convince Alvin Bragg because Bragg wouldn't meet with him. COATES: And now, Alvin Bragg is the one bringing this case, Elliot. And if he does come up and talk about these issues, in addition to catching Cohen in perhaps some lies, I do wonder from your perspective, are these the kinds of lies that may sway a jury to say, okay, well then, the documents, I don't believe either because that's the case's sudden substance? ELLIOT WILLIAMS, CNN LEGAL ANALYST, FORMER FEDERAL PROSECUTOR: These -- no. You know, I -- it's hard to know what will sway a jury. Think about everybody up here has dealt in some way in criminal prosecutions and seen people be convicted over the testimony of really disgusting witnesses, far beyond perjury and lists of lies and so on. So, it's hard to say that because a primary witness in a trial gets his credibility, I don't even want to say shredded, beaten up pretty aggressively, that the whole thing is thrown out. Now, remember how much of the testimony that he gave is corroborated in other places in the form of documents and checks and so on. And so, I don't think it's all over for the prosecution. Now, to be clear, does one ever wish to have happened to their witness what happened to Michael Cohen today, if you're a jury? No, absolutely not. This was bad, and the prosecution has some explaining to do come Monday. But I would not go as far as saying that absolutely, you know, on account of Michael Cohen getting slapped around today, that it's all done. COATES: Let me bring back in Devlin really quick. I want to have him in part of the conversation as well. You were in the courtroom, Devlin Barrett. Let me ask you, what was the reaction by the prosecution team? Do we have Devlin still? BARRETT: Yeah, I'm here. COATES: I want to know what the reaction from the prosecution was when this was happening. I mean, I know you want to be stoic when you're at the defense table, at the trial counsel table. You don't want to let on at all that there is an Achilles heel that might be in full view. But did they demonstrate or show some moment when they didn't expect this? BARRETT: I mean, I think they were being careful in the moment, specifically in that moment when Blanche is yelling at him. But they tried to help Cohen by mounting a lot of objections. They tried to essentially -- and a lot of times, you know what it's like in trial. You try to like slow the other side down. COATES: Uh-hmm. BARRETT: You try to give the witness a chance to catch their breath and think through the answer. They did a lot of that today. But at the key moments, you know, Blanche -- this moment of yelling will be important and is important. There were other moments, though, in quiet, calm testimony where Blanche also hurt Cohen. COATES: Hmm. BARRETT: And so, the prosecution did what it could to slow that down. But, you know, Blanche was effective for significant chunks of the day. COATES: One of those calm moments, Brandi and Jim, was the idea of whether you were -- if you were personally invested in a case, would it impact your willingness to lie or your effect on it? And he seemed to concede that he would be personally impacted by this case and it had an influence on his truthfulness in the past if he was personally involved in the matter. Let me ask both of you, as my consummate defense attorneys. How do you rehabilitate him? If this were your client on the stand, right? TRUSTY: Please, go first. COATES: There you go. Okay, there you go, Brandi. TRUSTY: Absolutely. COATES: If you were -- if this was your client on the stand and you saw this happening, obviously, he's not the defendant, it's Donald Trump, but how, if you're the prosecution, would you try to rehabilitate that lack of credibility? HARDEN: I think one of the things he has to do is just he has to admit what the weaknesses are. Like, whatever the thing is, he has to just come out and say, yes, I have an interest, I'm not lying about certain things, there are things that I have done wrong or there's a way in which I feel -- I feel invested in this case. Whatever the thing is, you cannot maintain your credibility without just coming out and admitting it. That's what he needs to do. And I think, you know, that comes in the form of witness prep. You have to talk to your client, you have to talk them through whatever the weaknesses are, and you have to bring out the bad stuff. I just learned something recently. There's a new acronym called BOBS, Bring Out the Bad Stuff. That's what you have to do. You've got to advance whatever your theory of the case is, and you have to make sure that the witness explains why there are bad things or why they have an interest in the case or why it's going to affect them. Without that, again, you lose your credibility. Once your credibility is lost, you can't really get it back. COATES: I'm going to talk to the millennial a second before I come to you and just say, as Brandi said, if you don't BOBS, you may FAFO. (LAUGHTER) Don't google it, don't google it, don't google it. No. leave it alone, leave it alone. Go ahead, Jim. TRUSTY: My BOBS, my "S" stood for something different. But -- I mean, look, in real life, in a normal case, you know what happens at this point for rehabilitation? [23:15:02] The prosecutor goes, hey, well, you're going to take a misdemeanor by any chance because this case -- I mean, look, I don't know how this jury -- you know, whether to have a lot of faith in how this jury views the case. And jury instructions are still a huge component of how this plays out. But Cohen is a horrific witness. I mean, let's be honest. The guy came in -- to Elliot's point, I used to -- 27 years as a prosecutor, I put gang murderers on the stand all the time. WILLIAMS: Yeah. COATES: Yeah. TRUSTY: And I'll take a shameless sociopath who sits there and says, oh, yeah, I killed him. Did you feel bad about it? No, I probably should have killed him twice. I'd rather have that witness than a dissembling fraudster. COATES: Hmm. TRUSTY: And this fraudster literally touches every potential cross- examination you're allowed to do. Interest in the outcome, bias, convictions for perjury, convicted of lying to Congress, lying to a special prosecutor, inconsistent statements. He is the definition of cross-examination. We were joking around. Don't you wish you could do a case in D.C. where Cohen testifies? He is the most fun cross- examination in history. I think for most of Todd's cross, my last point, I think for most of Todd's cross, it was very disciplined in terms of keeping it tight because Cohen is the type of witness who look to make a speech to turn things around. Now, he got real fired up and theatrical about this kind of pivotal moment about the 96-second phone call. COATES: Uh-hmm. TRUSTY: And I think that in some senses, that's a danger zone because you go too far, you think you're on "A Few Good Men" or something, you can't handle the truth, and the guy makes a speech and you've lost a whole bunch of progress. But I think he survived it. From what I can tell, he got through that okay, made the point. And keep in mind, Cohen never said anything indirect about, I think it was that time I was complaining about a 14-year-old. He looked at phone records, (INAUDIBLE) his testimony, and then he gets crossed on it. He's like, well, it could have been both. He didn't mention indirect anything about the 14-year-old. COATES: Well, the question will be how consequential these tidbits will be for the jury who's seeing the overall picture. Everyone, please stand by. We have a lot more to discuss. And up ahead, you've got questions about the Trump hush money trial? We've got your answers. We'll take your live calls and questions. Plus, there is breaking news out of Houston. We have now learned at least four people are dead after a powerful storm rolled through the city. The wind was so bad that there are reports of damage to skyscrapers downtown, some windows blowing out completely. Local officials say close to a million people in and around the Houston area are without power. Tonight, we'll bring you updates as soon as we get them. (COMMERCIAL BREAK) [23:21:32] COATES: Well, we're in the middle of the most crucial point in Trump's hush money trial, and you all have a lot of questions about what has been happening. And tonight, we are taking your calls. (PHONE RINGING) And we've got the panel here to help answer them all. And if you want to ever participate, you just go to CNN.com/TrumpTrialQuestions. You fill out the form, you type in your question there, and then we'll reach out to have you call in as the trial continues to unfold. Let's get to our first caller of the night. Helen from Longmont, Colorado, what's your question? Hi, Helen. HELEN, CALLER FROM LONGMONT, COLORADO (via telephone): Hi, Laura. So, the judge in Donald Trump's recent civil fraud case stated point blank in his verdict that -- quote -- "The court found Cohen's testimony credible" -- end quote. Is there any way at all that the prosecution can put that important piece of information before the jury in the business records criminal case? COATES: That's a great question. Let's ask and bring in Elliot Williams here because there was actually a moment I want to just bring to people's attention. Here's what Judge Engoron had to say about his testimony. He said, although the animosity between the witness and the defendant is palpable, providing Cohen with an incentive to lie, the court found his testimony credible. Michael Cohen told the truth. Elliot? WILLIAMS: I don't think so. Different trial, different proceeding, different judge, different court. I mean, it's -- you know, you have a federal court versus a state court -- oh, no, pardon me, this was another state court. No, you would not be able to do that. Now, the prosecution here can certainly try to do what they can to bolster Michael Cohen's credibility. Frankly, in the break, we were talking about some of the ways they could ask him questions that he can answer effectively and clearly and honestly. But you couldn't really have a judgment call made by a judge in another case apply to a defendant in a another -- a witness in another. COATES: And that did come up as well in terms of if Donald Trump were to testify, they asked whether they could bring in that prior ruling about the other cases as part of it. But as it relates to Donald Trump testifying, not necessarily Michael Cohen. Mark from Cleveland, Ohio, you got a question. Hi, Mark. MARK, CALLER FROM CLEVELAND, OHIO (via telephone): Yeah. Hi, Laura. How are you? COATES: I'm good. MARK (via telephone): Why can't Allen -- why can't Allen Weisselberg testify? COATES: It's a great question. Jim Trusty, why can't he testify? TRUSTY: That is a great question. Well, he probably could. I mean, it's really going to be an interesting moment here because there was this focus on the process of who actually approves of ledger entries, checks. There wasn't much help for the prosecution from the controller, I guess he was, and from others. There's this overall flavor of President Trump micromanages. But there wasn't really direct testimony. That came down to Cohen. I think the problem for the government is Weisselberg is basically a failed cooperator. I mean, they punished him because they didn't get what they wanted from this guy to flip on President Trump. If he comes in now post-Fifth Amendment, he's going to come in and he's going to be a wild card. He's got no interest in prepping with the government. So, if they called him, most likely, he backfires and he says, I did all this stuff, President Trump didn't have anything to do with it, good to see you, Don, and walks out while the prosecution scratches their head. I don't think they'd get anywhere with it. COATES: And, Brandi, he's in Rikers right now. The fact that he's in jail doesn't mean you can't bring him out. But for the reasons, would you bring somebody like this out who could maybe only plead the Fifth? HARDEN: So, it just depends. I mean, obviously, if somebody is going to plead the Fifth, it doesn't benefit your case. COATES: Right. HARDEN: But I think the other thing is what he's saying is absolutely right. He's just not going to help their case. [23:25:00] And I think, ultimately, if you can't meet with a witness before you put them on, you take a risk that you destroy your case. What if he says all the things that you wouldn't want him to say? So, there's really no reason to put on a witness that you can't prep, you can't talk with, and who ultimately hasn't helped you already. COATES: Hmm. HARDEN: No real reason. COATES: That's a good point. TRUSTY: You might hear his name in argument as kind of a missing witness argument. COATES: Yes. I was going to say, I mean, the idea that he's not there and everyone's talking about him, I mean, I know for all the parents out there, sometimes you've got to talk about Bruno. That's a Lin- Manuel Miranda reference. Gene from Fresno, California, what's your question? GENE, CALLER FROM FRESNO, CALIFORNIA (via telephone): Hi, Laura. COATES: Hi. GENE (via telephone): This week, there are many politicians showing up at the courthouse to support Trump. Do they get preferential treatment as far as seating inside the actual courtroom? Aside from the two trial parties, how are the seats allocated? COATES: Oh, I'm so glad you asked that question because I think so many people are wondering because we don't have eyes in the courtroom, but we do have people who've been there. I've been there as well. And Devlin Barrett is actually -- he has been in this courtroom consistently. Let me ask you that answer. First of all, there has been a lot of people who have come and gone. Do they get preferential treatment to be able to go closer to the action? BARRETT: They don't get preferential treatment from the court. What they get is Trump is allotted essentially two benches in the courtroom for people who want to attend on his behalf, essentially. So, Trump gets two rows of seats. And what you are seeing is these politicians making their pilgrimage to the courthouse, you know, supporting Donald Trump, and going into those seats. Prosecutors today, in fact, complained that some of the people in Trump's benches have been coming in mid-testimony with security details, and they think that's distracting and, you know, it's unfair to the process to have, you know, this sort of security- laden people coming in. You know, people talk about this as if this is like an audition for the vice presidency on the ticket. I get the politics of it, but to be honest, if sitting in court made you vice president, I would have been vice president like 20 years ago. (LAUGHTER) Like, it doesn't really -- I don't think -- there's a lot of noise around big, high-profile trials. I don't think it ultimately matters very much. But it is true that because of those two benches, Donald Trump can get essentially whoever he wants in the courtroom with him. COATES: I am surprised they're able to come and go whenever they feel like it or interrupt later on. I mean, I'm so accustomed to judges having maybe the tightest of shifts and not having the distraction, and this judge certainly has been that. These are very recognizable figures for most people who are walking inside of these rooms. I mean, well, maybe to the D.C. bunch, they are, anyway. BARRETT: Recognizable to us. COATES: That's true. Thank you so much for the panel, and I'm sorry that no one has made to the vice president yet, but it's okay. Well, thank you to all of you as well for asking your questions and to my panel for answering, everyone who called in. If you have a question you'd like us to answer on the Trump trial, we want to hear from you. Submit your questions at CNN.com/TrumpTrialQuestions. Well, up next, an upside-down flag used as a symbol by those who think the 2020 election was stolen. Tonight, a new report says that flag was seen at the home of Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito. And the controversy it's now creating, we'll talk about, as well as Alito's defense. And we have an update to the breaking news out of Houston where there is -- (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) -- widespread damage from a powerful storm. New video just in, showing what it was like inside the Wells Fargo Plaza in downtown. Four people are dead, the mayor canceling school for tomorrow and telling people to stay home. More updates as we get them. (END VIDEO CLIP) (COMMERCIAL BREAK) [23:33:03] COATES: Well, "The New York Times" is reporting tonight that they have obtained a photograph of an upside-down American flag at the home of Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito back on January 17, 2021. That was just days after the insurrection at the Capitol. Now, for those of you wondering, what's the big deal? For generations, flying the flag upside-down has been a symbol of distress. But it has also been adopted by the "Stop the Steal" movement. It was held by rioters at the Capitol as they tried to stop the certification of the Electoral College votes, again, just days before it reportedly appeared on Alito's lawn. In an email statement to the "Times," Alito says -- quote -- "I had no involvement whatsoever in flying of the flag," adding, "It was briefly placed by Mrs. Alito in response to a neighbor's use of objectionable and personally-insulting language on yard signs." I'd love to be a fly on the wall now that that statement has come out in their marriage. But a spokesperson for the Supreme Court has not responded to CNN's request for comment. CNN has not independently verified the image. Elliot Williams is back with us along with CNN political commentator and Democratic strategist Maria Cardona. Also, here, former Republican Congressman Joe Walsh. Let me just bring in for a second here Elliot because the Supreme Court, they're in the middle -- they were in the middle of debating whether they should hear an election case -- WILLIAMS: Uh-hmm. COATES: -- at this time as well. And so, there's already, well, maybe a popularity or approval rating issue for the Supreme Court. This doesn't help. WILLIAMS: It does not help. Now, what also doesn't help is that there's really no mechanism for getting a Supreme Court justice off a case if there's a problem. It's really, number one, up to them to police themselves. And two, they set their own rules. There isn't really an ethical code of behavior for Supreme Court justices that there is for the lower courts. And so, sure, perhaps a justice ought not be on a case where there is even the appearance of bias for the integrity of the court, but who's going to tell him he can't? [23:35:02] COATES: Well, you know, I know there's a saying called happy wife, happy life. How happy is his life right now? MARIA CARDONA, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: I don't think very. I mean, come on, blaming his wife? He said that he had no -- no decision was his in terms of flying the flag that way. But from the reporting that I've seen, it was there for a couple of days or more. And so, he didn't see it when he came home or in the morning when he went to work? So, that's just not credible. And what's interesting to me is that you have this situation, and then we've all heard about Clarence Thomas' wife, Virginia Thomas, who was literally involved in the strategizing to steal the election. And all of this to me is like how hypocritical are Republicans and especially Donald Trump when he's focusing on saying that the current judge of the current trial that he's in needs to recuse himself because his daughter has some Democratic leanings. And now you have this? I mean, the hypocrisy just could not be. COATES: I'm surprised as well he didn't just come out and say, this is not at all trying to, you know, support that message of "Stop the Steal." He could have said that. JOE WALSH, FORMER ILLINOIS REPRESENTATIVE: Because, Laura, this is like really serious. That upside-down flag is the symbol of an attempted coup. CARDONA: Right. WALSH: And the Supreme Court justice had that up at his house while, as you said, they were hearing challenges to the 2020 election. This is really, really serious. And maybe Elliot is right, there's nothing they can do, but, my God, you talk about trust in this court. CARDONA: Right. COATES: There's also an important moment that's happening tonight as well. You are a former member of Congress. You know, while everyone has been focusing on what's happening obviously in the Manhattan courtroom, there was also some pretty big news today, and that was that they are trying, obviously, to hold Attorney General Merrick Garland in contempt of Congress because he refuses to hand over the audio recording of the interview between President Biden and Special Counsel Robert Hur, which obviously dealt with his, you know, retention of documents and the conclusion of why they chose not to pursue prosecution, talking about his age and how he would present to a juror. This has been a real moment of contention. And just breaking tonight, the House Oversight Committee has approved to go forward, I believe, with this contempt. It has to go to the full House, of course. And this is the split screen when you've got members of Congress. They had to delay this -- WALSH: Yeah. COATES: -- because they were in court today -- WALSH: Yeah. COATES: -- for Donald Trump. WALSH: It's all political. I think I said in November that Trump's campaign will be in and around a courthouse all of this year. And that's what it is. And so, all those Republicans, my former colleagues, at that courthouse, they're all leaning into this. They think, I believe, this trial helps Trump. And, Laura, I think it does as well. But on that -- on holding Merrick Garland in contempt, they have the transcript. They only want the audio to play politics with it. COATES: Well, you've been -- you work in this actual department, right, the Department of Justice in this decision. WILLIAMS: Yeah. COATES: And there is precedent to suggest that by asserting executive privilege, there has been precedent that you have not, as a DOJ, prosecuted an attorney general for withholding information. Eric Holder, it was the same. And also, Bill Barr. WILLIAMS: Right. And, you know, to step back a little bit, this was my office at the Justice Department. And, you know, their basis for holding this particular recording back, as Joe said, they've given transcripts, interviews, other information. They made the report available to Congress immediately and provided materials even without Congress having asked. There's a longstanding back and forth between many committees in Congress and the Justice Department over which documents to provide. They usually work it out. It's called the accommodations process. And, you know, the Justice Department's letter lays out all the things they did to accommodate the requests of Congress here. So, expecting this one recording could chill, this was their argument, could chill future people from even talking to the Justice Department in the first place. So, you know, it's sort of all, like Joseph was saying, it's sort of a silly political season. This is well within the norm of how congressional oversight would work. COATES: But in political season, I wonder what you think about this, Maria, because not only were there Republican members of Congress, there has been, I think, maybe 19 or so who have shown up over the course of this trial. Not only one member of Trump's family has actually appeared, I think Eric Trump. But there was one congressman, Matt Gaetz, who actually posted this message on his "X" account today, invoking this famous line, saying, you know, this famous stand back and stand by. I think he said standing back and standing by was what he was doing for Trump. He said standing back and standing by Mr. President, seeing the blurred image behind him. This is -- why would -- why would Gaetz do this? CARDONA: Because I think that he is someone who thinks that by doing that, he is going to continue to be in Trump's favor. And you know Donald Trump loved that. [23:40:01] You know he did, because that, for Donald Trump, is an indication that he was right, right? And all of these members of Congress parading to his side like lemmings, like a cult, is something that they know Trump loves. He says jump, they say how high. I think, and I agree with Joe, that I think this helps Donald Trump, but only with his base. I don't think this helps with independent voters, and I don't think this helps Congress. And it certainly doesn't help Republicans in Congress who want to keep their majority. This is going to be a huge message for Democrats. They're not doing the business of the people. They are only there to genuflect at the altar of Donald Trump. COATES: You agree? WALSH: No. But we don't have time. (LAUGHTER) I think it will help Trump beyond his base, but that will be for tomorrow. COATES: Oh, look at that cliffhanger. Okay. (LAUGHTER) CARDONA: You'll have to have us back. COATES: Okay, there you go. All right, well, there you go. Thank you, everyone, so much. Next, Daniel Perry. He was sentenced to 25 years for killing "Black Lives Matter" protester Garrett Foster. You know what? He's got a pardon from the Texas governor. Garrett Foster's mother joins me to react. (COMMERCIAL BREAK) [23:45:26] COATES: Tonight, a man convicted of murder for killing an armed "Black Lives Matter" protester is walking free. Former U.S. Army sergeant Daniel Perry was serving a 25-year prison sentence for fatally shooting Air Force veteran Garrett Foster in 2020. Today, Perry was pardoned by Texas Governor Greg Abbott. And just to remind you what happened, prosecutors say that Perry drove his SUV through a red light into a crowd of protesters in Austin. He was apparently approached by Foster, who was openly carrying an assault-style rifle, which is legal in Texas. Foster then motioned for Perry to lower his window, at which point Perry shot Foster with a handgun. The defense argued that Perry's actions were justified as self- defense, but the jury, they went on to convict him. Now, Governor Abbott made an unusual request for the Texas Board of Pardons and Paroles to carry out an expedited review before Perry was even sentenced. Now, that board unanimously voted to pardon Perry and restore his firearm rights earlier today. I want to bring in Sheila Foster, Garrett Foster's mom, and the attorney representing her, Quentin Brogdon. Sheila Foster, thank you so much for joining us this evening. It is heartbreaking every time I hear about and remind the audience about what has happened to your family, to your beloved child. He was convicted of murder, Daniel Perry, on April 7th of last year. The very next day, Governor Abbott was speaking openly about wanting to pardon your son's killer. What is it you're feeling tonight? SHEILA FOSTER, MOTHER OF GARRETT FOSTER: Um, reading the governor's pardon, it appears as though nothing that was done in trial and nothing that was reviewed by the pardon board was included in his pardon. That is all stuff that was said by the defense attorney in the beginning. It's not anything that the pardon board discovered. All of that stuff was debunked at trial. Everything the governor put in his pardon letter was proven wrong during trial. COATES: Did you feel -- when the conviction happened and he was found guilty, how did you feel about losing your son and justice and accountability at that point? FOSTER: When they -- when they announced that he was guilty? COATES: Yes. FOSTER: That was -- that was a relief. That was a relief. And I slept better that night than I had in nearly three years. And I woke up the next morning, and it was so peaceful. And then I literally was basking in peace that morning and thanking God that we finally got justice. And then I got a text message from my friend telling me about the governor's tweet. And I thought, there's no way he would actually do that. There's no way he's actually going to do that. And then here we are. COATES: Is that how you found out? You mean, this is the way that you found out, through a tweet? The governor's office didn't contact you or you didn't have the advance notice? FOSTER: No. It was through a tweet. When I found out that my son was murdered, I found out by Whitney's mother, the authorities didn't even contact me, his next of kin. I had to find that out from his wife's mother. And my daughter had previously already learned it on Facebook. So, nothing involving this case is normal. Nothing is ethical. Nothing is right. Everything that has happened is wrong on so many levels. And I don't understand why. It is so crystal clear to me that this man needs to be in prison for the rest of his life, not a mere 25 years, while he wouldn't even have to serve a year. I don't understand. I don't understand. Governor Abbott wouldn't pardon him -- COATES: I mean -- FOSTER: He wouldn't pardon him if this was a Trump rally. [23:50:00] If this was a Trump rally and somebody drove into that crowd and gunned one of those people down, do you think Governor Abbott would pardon that killer? COATES: Your question, I think, is swirling around so many people's minds, and I think they have their answers quite clearly. I want to bring you in here, Quentin. It's unbelievable to think of how this mother has had to learn about a pardon for someone convicted of killing her son. You were considering filing a civil case even before the murder conviction. Is she without any legal recourse now? Are you going to be able to pursue any legal action now that he has been pardoned? QUENTIN BROGDON, FORMER ATTORNEY FOR GARRETT FOSTER'S FAMILY: Laura, thank you. We decided, Sheila and I, and Sheila is one of the bravest clients I've ever represented, not to go forward with a civil case because there was accountability in the wake of the conviction of Daniel Perry. But now, the governor has turned the rule of law on his head. He seems to have forgotten a basic truth that our founding fathers knew well, namely that respect for the rule of law begins with respect for the will of citizen jurors. And in this case, there were 12 citizen jurors who gave up two weeks of their lives to consider the evidence. They heard from 40 witnesses. They deliberated 15 hours. And at the end of that, those same 12 citizen jurors voted unanimously to convict Daniel Perry. And assuming the governor or anybody else who would say this is a travesty of justice is correct, then there are two separate courts of appeals in Texas that can be allowed and should have been allowed to weigh in on this and potentially reverse it if it needed to be reversed. But when the judge steps in with two big feet and undoes the will of citizen jurors, a legitimate question arises. Is this based on the merits or is it based on some crass political calculation? COATES: Sheila, I'm so sorry for your loss, and that we have not had a chance to meet your beloved son. And I -- as mother to mother, I'm just heartbroken for you. And I commend, as your attorney is saying, your absolute bravery in continuing to fight and continuing to make the world know who your son is. Thank you so much. BROGDON: Thank you, Laura. FOSTER: He was a good person. Garrett was a very good person. COATES: I believe that with all my heart. Sheila, Quentin, thank you so much. We'll be right back. (COMMERCIAL BREAK) [23:57:15] COATES: All right, well, tonight, in our "Champions for Change," we meet a fashion designer returning to her Navajo roots. She is adapting indigenous values to apparel and giving back to a changing industry. (BEGIN VIDEOTAPE) AMY DENET DEAL, FOUNDER, 4KINSHIP: Everything we do here at the shop is based on working with vintage, things that have already been here on the planet. So that's a way just for me to really approach sustainability from an indigenous lens. I was an active wear designer for major corporations. I decided to leave corporate fashion and start my own company. Back in 2015, I rebranded in 2021 to the name 4Kinship. My indigeneity has been really a big part of how the brand has evolved. Growing up in Indiana, in a very rural area, being adopted into a white family, but being native, there was always a void. And as I got older, it became a stronger need for me to really know my identity. So, I found my mom and birth family. Who's that? UNKNOWN: Your aunt and mom (ph). DENET DEAL: Uh-hmm. It has just been this continual journey of learning more about all those sides of my families and their stories. UNKNOWN: Is that her? DENET DEAL: That's her. It came with understandings, not just saying I'm part of my community but actually putting that into motion and taking an action. It's just wonderful to find ways to be part of a positive change in our community. Kids in the remote areas of Navajo Nation, they have so few resources. So, we've built a skate park. Skateboarding is there in so many ways as a sport that can really, truly help the mental health and wellness of our kids. Just FYI, I had no idea what I was doing when I thought, oh, let's build a skate park. But there's so many things that we can be creative as native people by simply reimagining stuff that we already have. For our young people, a lot of them don't know people within creative industries that could help them. So, I think that is my job, as someone that comes from the outside, that comes back with different gifts, is to use that to create bridges. BRYAN ROESSEL, DESIGNER: I met Amy Denet Deal through the Navajo Cultural Arts Program. She just wants to flip this script (ph) on native art, native fashion, and that allows me the freedom to kind of step outside the box. [00:00:00] There are so many makers that haven't had space in other places to sell, that we open our house to that opportunity for them to get a start. It's a really beautiful compilation of all different tribes coming together in the shop. The fun part of my job is to revolutionize the performance space for indigenous peoples. Please never take this off. UNKNOWN: I love this. DENET DEAL: It's a new way to reinvest in our young people because instead of creating events that make money for the event organizer, it's to create events that distribute to the performers, the creatives that are part of that show. I've been in the fashion industry for a long time and to actually be in this place to honor my indigeneity and to practice reciprocity for everything that we take, we find a way to give back. (MUSIC PLAYING) So, we are a sustainable brand that simply found ways to be of service through everything I do through my creative world. (END VIDEOTAPE) COATES: Be sure to tune in Saturday at 9 p.m. Eastern for the "Champions for Change" one hour special. Hey, thank you all so much for watching. Our coverage continues with "Anderson Cooper 360."