Anderson Cooper 360 Degrees Aired May 28, 2024 - 20:00 ET THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED. [20:00:00] … ANDERSON COOPER, CNN HOST: And good evening. Thanks for joining us. It went from early this morning, late into the evening and it just wrapped up. First, the defense and then the prosecution, the first criminal trial ever of a former president having their final say. Jurors will get the case tomorrow. Manhattan prosecutor Joshua Steinglass, until moments ago, walking them step by step by step through the former president's hush money payment to Stormy Daniels shortly before the 2016 election and the alleged scheme to hide it from voters. Now, he emphasized how much of the case in his telling did not rely solely on the testimony of former fixer Michael Cohen, whose faults he acknowledged, saying, quote, "We didn't pick him up at the witness store." As for defense attorney Todd Blanche, he accused Cohen of lying to the jury, calling him, quote, "The MVP of liars and the GLOAT," which he said stands for "greatest liar of all time." He wrapped up by listing 10 justifications for reasonable doubt, the final one being Michael Cohen. Blanche also earned a scolding from the judge for saying, quote, "You cannot send somebody to prison," unquote, based on Cohen's word. Judges make that decision, not juries. The judge will instruct jurors on the relevant points of law tomorrow, after which the former president's fate will be in their hands. As for him, he went into today complaining online that the prosecution gets the last word, complaining during a break this afternoon that the prosecution's closing arguments were, quote, "Boring." We're waiting to see if he'll have anything to say tonight. With us is New York criminal defense attorney, Arthur Aidala; CNN Legal Analyst, Norm Eisen; CNN NEWSNIGHT's Abby Phillip; THE SOURCE's Kaitlan Collins. All three were in the court. Also CNN's Senior Legal Analyst Elie Honig and CNN's Kara Scannell outside the courthouse in Lower Manhattan. Kara, let's start with you. What was the mood like in these historic and lengthy, lengthy closing arguments? KARA SCANNELL, CNN CORRESPONDENT: The marathon of closing arguments. I mean, the jury's attention was wrapped throughout this day. They had been inside that courtroom for more than 10 hours listening, what almost seems like could have been yesterday, to Donald Trump's team give their closing arguments. And then the prosecutor, Joshua Steinglass, just finishing moments ago. His closing arguments lasted almost five hours, four hours and 41 minutes. They were focused on both of the attorneys as they spoke. I've looked at them multiple times, and they were all looking directly at the lawyer, looking down at the monitors in front of them when evidence was put up on the screen. The lawyers, both of them, went through excerpts of transcripts, some of these text messages, the phone logs, all to remind the jury in the prosecution's case that they do have evidence, that there is evidence beyond Michael Cohen, and that they should find Donald Trump guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. And then in the defense's case, trying to poke holes in the testimony of Cohen and in some of the other evidence that they have, suggesting that if this was really a big conspiracy, why wasn't David Pecker involved in the ultimate payment to Stormy Daniels, so a lot of focus and attention by the jury today. Donald Trump, for his part, had actually turned his chair about 90 degrees at one point to watch his lawyer give the closings and watch the jury as they were taking all of this in during the prosecution's closing arguments. Trump was facing forward. He didn't really seem to be paying much attention to that, occasionally leaning in to look at the monitor himself about some of the e-mails and text messages that were put up. But a long day - a day that really tested the patience of people in there. But the jury did seem to be wrapped. The judge checked with them several times to see if they wanted to keep going. And at one point he asked them publicly in front of us, not having an officer do it behind the scenes. And the jurors nodded their heads in agreement that they wanted to stay. But this now finally coming to an end just a few moments ago, Anderson. COOPER: Norm, you were there both for the morning session and the afternoon session. What jumped out at you? What were the high highs and low lows? NORM EISEN, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: Well, it was a long day. I thought the jury hung in there. The first thing you look for is, is the jury continuing to pay attention? And they did. It was fascinating to me, the strategy of the defense and the prosecution, Anderson, because they were opposite strategies. The defense honed in on the three critical issues in this case and said, you can't prove these 34 records were false. You can't prove Trump intended to defraud with these false records that he knew they were not income, that they were reimbursements. [20:05:05] And you can't show that he was covering up an election conspiracy. So they used kind of an inductive approach. They organized the evidence, Todd Blanche, by those three issues. The prosecution took the exact opposite, a chronological or a deductive approach. It felt like they reviewed all 200 plus exhibits that they have put into evidence in this case. At times it was painful. That's when we were watching the jury. As Kara said, they hung in. But I thought that was necessary. Don't - as a prosecutor, don't leave anything on the table. If the judge will give you the time, if the jury says I'll stay till eight o'clock, argue till seven 7:59. And the weight, the overwhelming weight of the evidence, that was the prosecution approach. KAITLAN COLLINS, CNN ANCHOR: I mean, it was striking how different the two closing arguments were, because Michael Cohen loomed over both of them, but in very different ways. Todd Blanche was trying to basically eviscerate Michael Cohen and any credibility he had with these jurors, repeatedly saying he lied to you and trying to make it personal almost for them. Josh Steinglass, the prosecutor took a very different approach, and he kind of had this very conversational style. He was almost incredulous at some of the arguments that Todd Blanche had made. He made no hesitation in turning back to point in Todd Blanche's direction or point at Donald Trump, who he almost never referred to as Donald Trump. He just referred to him as the defendant, the defendant, the defendant repeatedly. And he was kind of scoffing almost at what Todd Blanche had said in his closing arguments. And he would say, you know, I'll get back to that ridiculous point later or they really want you to believe this. Trying to kind of create this idea that whatever Todd Blanche had said in his closing argument was just not believable for them. COOPER: By the way, that's the Trump motorcade leaving the court. COLLINS: Which is notable because Trump didn't speak leaving court, which he normally does. But the other thing that they tried to do with Michael Cohen that stood out to me, because I was in there this afternoon as he was in his lengthy closing arguments for the prosecution, is he was saying, this isn't all on Michael Cohen. The documents that we have here, which he referred to as the smoking gun in this case, which is the one that has the math jotted down on how they would pay Michael Cohen back, didn't come from Michael Cohen. It came from Jeff McConney, a Trump organization employee who, as the prosecution noted, has no ax to grind with Donald Trump. ABBY PHILLIP, CNN ANCHOR: I did think, just reflecting back on the morning session where I was in the court, you know, the Trump team, they did present some things that were just beyond belief. I mean, the idea that no one in Trump's orbit thought that the National Enquirer running negative stories or positive stories about Trump would influence the election in any way, beyond belief. COOPER: That was the whole point of that meeting with David Pecker. PHILLIP: That was the whole point of the meeting. I mean, and the idea that Donald Trump, just as a person, would not believe that. So look, the good news for the defense is that they don't have to prove this case beyond a reasonable doubt. It's not on them to do that. But it did make me wonder, some of those moments where maybe in some cases they were twisting the evidence in ways that did not actually comport with what the evidence actually was, in ways that they asserted things. Like, for example, they called the Access Hollywood moment basically a nothing burger in the campaign. Again, a ridiculous assertion if you were there, you were a human being in the United States of America when it occurred. Those moments, I think, cut against their credibility in some crucial ways. Will it make or break this case? I don't know. But part of the argument that they were trying to make to the jury is that Michael Cohen cannot be believed. Michael Cohen is the person who is the serial liar, the fabulist. And yet, I think the prosecution tried to make this point when they got their turn in closing statements. You cannot also make statements that are kind of beyond belief and then have the jury want to believe you and disregard everything that Michael Cohen has to say. COOPER: I want to hear from Arthur and Elie in just a second. But for those of you who are in the courtroom, the - it's different when you're inside versus what we on the outside in the morning were reading from our folks inside. Todd Blanche's - his closing statement felt meandering when you were just reading the text on the outside. Did it play meandering in the room? And I'm wondering, for the prosecution's closing, did it feel like five hours? EISEN: It felt like more than five hours to me. I'm a very restless person, but I thought it was the right thing to do for them to use all that time. Blanche is a meanderer. He is not a linear person. We saw this in his cross-examination of Michael Cohen. COOPER: Is that strategy or just lack of experience in this kind of trial? EISEN: Today, it was a strategy because he wanted to hone in on all the places where there can be reasonable doubt in the order he thought of the difficulty of proof. He wanted to go from stronger, less strong to weakest. [20:10:01] He hit them with the best shot. But it did meander at times. The jury does not - I think the jury does not like Todd Blanche. I think they prefer Emil Bove. I think they like Susan Necheles better. I don't think they're fond of ... COOPER: You're like a juror whisperer. EISEN: ... I don't think they're - come on, (INAUDIBLE) ... COOPER: And by the way, this is a jury that ... EISEN: ... and we saw that, too. COOPER: ... this is a jury that does not show a lot. So that tells me you have been analyzing them. COLLINS: But they smiled several times as Steinglass was making his thing, which it did go on at length and there were some dry moments where he was going through the documents. But he also would pepper in these quotes, like the one where he said Donald Trump didn't pay a porn star or pay a lawyer, but he was paying a porn star and funneling the money through an attorney. When he was talking about he didn't go to the witness store to get Michael Cohen, he was making the point, this is who Donald Trump chose to surround himself with. So it was really long, but he had these little lines. And I saw some of the jurors smiling at some of Steinglass' lines, which is a big deal because they don't have expressions typically. COOPER: Oh, yes. Elie, Arthur, let's hear it from you. ELIE HONIG, CNN SENIOR LEGAL ANALYST: So I'm definitely going to defer to the people who are in the room because there's no replacement for that. I mean, I'm looking at it like our viewers and watching each individual update come up. Ordinarily, I would think a five hour closing is outrageous. It goes against everything I was taught, it goes against everything I've ever done. I never gave a closing anywhere near five hours. You lose the jury. It's a terrible idea. But hearing Norm say that the jury, first of all, they were asked, do you want to stay and indicated yes, and that they continued to pay attention. That makes a difference for me. If you still have their attention, I don't think it's disastrous to do this. I agree based on what we were able to see. I thought Todd Blanche's closing did meander. I don't think meandering is a strategy. I think it's a fault. You can attack a prosecution case aggressively and effectively in a direct and compelling way. And to me, the whole argument about this had nothing to do with the campaign from six weeks ago when this case started struck me as a stretch. And I think it remains a stretch now under the evidence. I would have dropped that, honestly. The whole part about you don't concede it explicitly, just give it the back of the hand. Stormy Daniels denied this ever happened, right? Hope Hicks told you it was about the family. Focus on the documents and connecting Trump to the documents. That's where the defense lies. That's where I think Blanche had his better moments. COOPER: Arthur? PHILLIP: It had a feel of throwing everything at the wall ... HONIG: Yes. PHILLIP: ... that might stick. ARTHUR AIDALA, NEW YORK DEFENSE ATTORNEY: Okay. So I'm going to take a page out of Elie's book and I'm going to defer to the people in the courtroom. But I am sitting here with three national anchors and all three of you know it's all about editing, right? You could go on, I could give you guys all, (INAUDIBLE) we're going to talk for three hours. You'll figure out something to say. It's all about editing it down. And you know, Elie talked about his training. I was blessed to be trained in the Brooklyn DA's office. I remember Angelo Morelli (ph). I thought I gave a great summation. He's like, shut up. Just shut up, Arthur. Enough, you're going on and on. But I was 26 years old. I was 27 years old. I was 28 years old, so I learned. And it's - honestly, it's a similar skill set on television. You can't go on and on. You get this. You get 30 seconds, 15 and then you got a countdown. It's the same thing with a jury. You have to be like, okay, there's a limited amount of time. I get that they're looking at them just because they're looking at them. You don't know where their brain is at. Well, that was a really good burger I had at Memorial Day. Like you don't know where they're thinking and where they're lapsing in and out. But Abby, when you talk about losing credibility, to me that's the most important part. It's one thing for a jury not to like the lawyer, not to like have kumbaya with the lawyer. But it's another thing to not believe him or think he or she is trying to sell him a bill of goods that just doesn't make any sense. And the example you use, I do agree with saying that that Access Hollywood thing was a bit of nothing. I mean, I know that summer day sitting at home, it was not a bit of nothing. It was a big deal. COOPER: Yes. PHILLIP: Yes. I mean, there were so many moments like that. They described - he - they were trying to poke holes in the recording of Donald Trump, fair enough. But the way that they tried to poke holes in it, I thought also really stretched credibility, suggesting that Trump didn't say things that you could hear him saying on the call, even describing how the call ended inaccurately by saying that Michael Cohen - you couldn't hear Michael Cohen picking up the other call. That's not at all what happened. He was recording on his phone, received an incoming call, which ended the recording. And so to - look, if you have an iPhone, you know how that goes and misrepresenting that to the jury, I think, does not help that. COOPER: Kara, I mean, who sat inside the court, the other thing that - one of the things he may have misrepresented was - implying that, well, the National Enquirer doesn't matter because its circulation was 350,000 at this time, when in truth, you know, the impact of a National Enquirer story can be far beyond the number of actual subscribers who, you know, pay money to read the National Enquirer or look at it even on the checkout stand. It has a ripple effect. Other people do reporting based off it. SCANNELL: Yes. I mean, one of the things that Blanche had said was that, you know, the National Enquirer had such a low subscriber rate compared to The New York Times. [20:15:00] But then on closing arguments by the prosecution, they said that that was kind of absurd that everybody who's in a supermarket who checks out at the register is going to walk past and see the headlines of the National Enquirer. Remember, David Pecker had testified that he didn't want to get involved with the Stormy Daniels deal because he didn't want to do a story about a porn star because of these - because his tabloid is on the supermarket shelves and that some of these supermarkets wouldn't want to see that. So certainly the prosecution came back at that point by saying that, you know, even though the circulation may be lower than that of The New York Times, it doesn't mean that the number of eyeballs that aren't passing this when everyone is checking out at the grocery store, they're still going to see that. So they tried to correct that part of it. And you know, yes, it's true. If the National Enquirer does have a true story, then that would be something that other national organizations would follow and try to match. COOPER: There was also testimony during the trial that David Pecker didn't even care what was inside the pages of the National Enquirer. All he cared about was the front cover, because the impact of that checkout line and just people seeing that front cover, that for him was such a huge priority. Kara Scannell, thank you. We're going to take a quick break. John Berman joins us. He's been going through the transcripts of tonight's extended closing arguments. We'll talk about what could stand out for the jury. And later journalist Ronan Farrow joins us. He was reporting on catch and kill, gave us such an early and clear window into the world that jurors have been shown in this trial. (COMMERCIAL BREAK) [20:20:21] COOPER: Just moments ago, closing arguments in the Stormy Daniels hush money trial wrapped up in lower Manhattan, the prosecution getting the lengthy last word, nearly five hours worth. Tomorrow morning after hearing instructions from the judge, jurors will have the case and the former president's fate will be in their hands. Joining us CNN's John Berman. He's been going through the trial transcripts for us tonight. We mentioned this moment when Judge Merchan scolded Trump's attorney, Todd Blanche. How did that play out in the transcript? JOHN BERMAN, CNN ANCHOR: So it was - he came right at the end of Todd Blanche's summation where he was once again saying that Michael Cohen is a liar. You can't convict just based on Michael Cohen. Todd Blanche said, "Cohen came in here, he raised his right hand and he lied to each of you repeatedly, repeatedly. You cannot - you cannot send somebody to prison, you cannot convict somebody," Josh Steinglass, the prosecutor says, "Objection." Judge Merchan says, "Sustained." Blanche then goes on, "You cannot convict somebody based upon words of Michael Cohen." Now, that was at the very end of the summation. The jury then left the room. They went on their lunch break and there was a conference here and the judge scolded Todd Blanche for what he said here. He said, "I'm going to give a curative instruction. I think that saying that was outrageous, Mr. Blanche. Please have a seat. For someone who has been a prosecutor as long as you have, and a defense attorney as long as you have, you know that making a comment like that is highly inappropriate. It's simply not allowed. Period. It's hard for me to imagine how that was accidental in any way." COOPER: It's also interesting that as soon as Steinglass said objection and it was sustained, Todd Blanche didn't need instruction about what the objection was about. He knew instantly what he had said was inappropriate, right? I mean, he - because he corrected himself by just taking out the prison part. AIDALA: Yes, that's - I like to push the envelope in the summation, but that's - you can't say jail. You just can't say jail. You can say, you know, you use your common sense. People don't tell you to check - leave your common sense outside. You know, we all know what happens at the end of a trial. That's not for you to decide. It's up for the judge. But you can't say jail. EISEN: He didn't push the envelope. He tore the envelope and ripped it into little pieces. AIDALA: All right. He said jail, Norm. EISEN: I think he knew. AIDALA: He said jail. EISEN: No, (INAUDIBLE) ... AIDALA: (INAUDIBLE) he said ... EISEN: No, Arthur. AIDALA: Yeah, he shouldn't have said it. EISEN: That is ... AIDALA: But he said jail. EISEN: ... no, that's a red line. You do not - you never talk to the jury about it. COOPER: All right. So explain to the audience why that is a red line. EISEN: Because it is so powerfully prejudicial for the jury ... AIDALA: But it's not their job. EISEN: ... to involve them in sentencing. That is the role of the judge. COOPER: So put - telling them that you're going to - you potentially are sending the former president of the United States to prison, that's prejudicial. EISEN: There's three jobs. The job of the jury is to weigh the facts. The job of the judge is to instruct them on the law so they can apply the law to the facts. And then depending on the verdict, it comes back to the judge to sentence. But in defense of Todd, I will say it seemed to me as soon as he said it, he knew he'd gone too far. He kind of stopped himself. It was like a little hiccup. I think he just got carried away in the moment. And it was not an intentional. AIDALA: All right. There we go. EISEN: Or that he flipped. AIDALA: He made a mistake. He slipped. Come on. EISEN: He made a mistake. AIDALA: That's why there's a seven second delay on TV. EISEN: But he was so hard on Michael Cohen for his mistake when he didn't remember the (INAUDIBLE) ... AIDALA: Yes, it's night and day, you can't compare those two things. PHILLIP: Look, this is a bell that is not going to get unrung, okay. I'm sorry, but it's not going to get unrung because it's always been in the atmosphere in this case. Ultimately, this jury is - they're not stupid people. They understand that this case is about finding ... COOPER: Trump is outside Trump Tower (INAUDIBLE) ... PHILLIP: ... a former president, Donald Trump, guilty of a felony, which would involve some kind of punishment. And I think that they know that. Todd Blanche evoked it and put it back on the table. I don't think that there's anything that can be done to take that out of their minds. AIDALA: The judge ... HONIG: I have a hard time believing that it was inadvertent. PHILLIP: Yes. HONIG: And I know Norm's trying to extend the benefit of the doubt and I'll tell you why. At the Southern District of New York, prosecutor's office where Todd used to work, where I used to work, where Alvin Bragg used to work, we were paranoid about exactly that happening. You did not want a defense lawyer, oops, slipping in. If you convict, he'll go to jail or he'll go to jail for decades or he'll go - you'll separate him from his family until his kids are full grown. And I was so paranoid about it. I would say to judge is right before a closing, judge, obviously they're not going to be mentioning the potential of prison here. Judge would always look at the defense lawyer and go, you're not doing that, right? Defense lawyer would go, of course not. That is - that was a serious overstep by Todd Blanche. He's lucky it was only a (INAUDIBLE) ... COOPER: John, I want to get back to you because Steinglass acted out a conversation between Cohen, Trump and Keith Schiller, the bodyguard, because this was that devastating moment when Michael Cohen was on the stand. [20:25:05] Todd Blanche revealed or got, you know, pointed out that there was a 14-year-old who had been harassing Michael Cohen on the phone. And Cohen had called Schiller or texted Schiller about what can I do about this 14-year-old. BERMAN: Initially, Cohen had testified that that phone call, for which there is a record, that that phone call was with Trump to tell him that the payment to Stormy Daniels was going through. You were there for the testimony. Todd Blanche elicited that it looks like there was a phone call at exactly that time with Keith Schiller where they talked about this 14 -year-old boy. And then Cohen on the stand basically ended up saying, well, maybe I talked about both things. So Josh Steinglass, the prosecutor here, tried to show that you could talk about both things inside the length of the phone call, which was 96 seconds, because they have a record for that. So what Josh Steinglass did is he goes out there before the jury today and he basically times himself and he says, "Let's try a little experiment. I will be Cohen." And he fakes a call here. "Hey, Keith, how's it going? It seems like this prankster might be a 14-year-old kid. If I text you the number, can you call and talk to his family? See if you can let them know how serious this is. It's not a joke. Uh- huh. Yes. All right. Thanks, pal. Hey, is the boss near you? Can you pass him the phone for a minute? I will wait just a couple of seconds." And then he pauses and waits for Schiller to fake hand the phone to fake Trump. And then he goes, "Hey, Boss. I know you're busy, but I just wanted to let you know that the other thing is moving forward with my friend Keith and the other party that we discussed. It's back on track. I'm going to try one last time to get our friend David to pay but if it's not, it's going to be us to take care of it. Aha. Yes. All right. Good luck in Tampa. Bye." COOPER: Wow. BERMAN: And when he timed it, it was 49 seconds, which is way less than the 96 seconds of the actual call. COLLINS: So this was ... PHILLIP: I'm actually very surprised that this was allowed to happen. Because I felt like he kind of injected hypothetical things that did not actually happen into the minds of the jury. That's kind of amazing. COLLINS: But what was remarkable about it, it was actually a really strong moment when you were in the room in court because Josh Steinglass held his - a fake phone up to his ear as he did this and he did pause. BERMAN: Sorry, I didn't do that. COLLINS: Yes, sorry. Well, I would have told you beforehand, but - and he did pause for a few seconds when he was saying, okay, wait to pass the phone to the boss. And it was actually a powerful moment in court because what he was trying to do was restore Michael Cohen's credibility from that moment a few weeks ago. The question is, of course, you know, the jury just had a week off. Did they remember that moment, was it distilled in their mind or was today actually more helpful in making the case that multiple things could be discussed on that call. And the point that he drove home after that was that the defense wants the jury to believe that Michael Cohen is coming in here to say anything he can to get Trump convicted. And Josh Steinglass is saying, well, if he was, why wouldn't he have gone further than the moments where he said, actually, Trump denied to me having a relationship with Stormy Daniels or Trump did this or I don't recall about that conversation. He was saying Michael Cohen can forget things. That doesn't mean he's lying to you. HONIG: The bit with the phone is a good piece of stagecraft. Like I'm - I respect that. I'm envious of that. I wish I would have done something like that as a prosecutor, but it's also a cheap gimmick. That's not the point of what Michael Cohen got caught in there. The point is not, he couldn't possibly have discussed both things in a minute, 36. Obviously he could - easily, he could have. The point is Michael Cohen never said a word about the text with the 14-year-old kid in the grand jury, in his prior statements to the prosecutor on direct. On direct, it was a very clean story. I just called Donald Trump, it was about Stormy Daniels. Then he gets caught. Then you see him backtrack in real time and come up with this, oh, well, maybe it was both things. That's the point that goes to his credibility. They really - it's a nice - not you, Berman - nice piece of stagecraft by the phone. BERMAN: I did love the phone, I'm sorry. HONIG: By the, by the prosecutor. But to me it's actually misdirection. COOPER: All right. John Berman, thank you. Great. Everyone stay with us. There's a lot more to discuss. We're going to be joined by the attorney of the man at the center of both closing arguments, Michael Cohen, next. (COMMERCIAL BREAK) [20:32:55] COOPER: As the transcripts we've been reading show, the defense aimed a lot of their rhetorical ammunition at the credibility of Michael Cohen, quoting the former president's attorney, Todd Blanche, saying, "And the last thing I'm going to talk about that gives you reasonable doubt is what I've been talking about for the past several hours, Michael Cohen, he's the human embodiment of reasonable doubt. Literally." Joining us now is Michael Cohen's attorney Danya Perry, who is also a former federal prosecutor. First of all, you're -- I'm wondering what you made of Todd Blanche, all the things he said about your client, about Michael Cohen on the stand today. Were you surprised by any of it? DANYA PERRY, MICHAEL COHEN'S LAWYER: I wasn't surprised because he gave a full preview of his argument during the lengthy cross- examination, and it obviously was the theme that they hit over and over again, beginning with opening statements. And I think that's pretty much all the ammunition that he had, and he obviously hit it very hard. Michael Cohen just told me that, by his count at least, he called -- Mr. Blanche called Mr. Cohen a liar 85 times. I don't know if anyone's actually counted that, but it sounds like it was a lot of times. And, you know, I think that that was a miscalculation, not just because I'm, you know, here to support my client's credibility, I think he was very credible, very honest, very forthright, very composed on the stand. And there was -- he gave no reason for the jury to believe that he wasn't telling the full and complete truth. Actually, sometimes he overallocated to things that, you know, at some point the defense said, so you lied to Congress, you know, on this and this date, and Michael said, yes, that he hadn't. So, he's over admitting to crimes and to bad conduct, if anything. I think he handled himself very well on the stand. And it's no wonder that the defense went after him. COOPER: They clearly were trying to rile him up at times when he was on the stand. He remained very calm really throughout, which is sort of a side of Michael Cohen a lot of people haven't seen. People were surprised by that. There was that moment when Todd Blanche, you know, got into the 14-year-old boy phone call that Michael Cohen had not previously disclosed or talked about. I don't know if prosecutors had not caught it as that occurring before the Keith Schiller phone call. [20:35:00] How does -- how do you explain the fact that Michael Cohen had not identified the involvement of the 14-year-old as part of that phone call? PERRY: It's exactly as you say, he -- it had been many years, right, that was in 2016, and he simply had forgotten what was a much less salient point from that conversation. Once he was reminded of it, it did come back to mind. It had been, you know, a young prankster who basically made it impossible for Mr. Cohen to conduct his business. And so, it did come back to him, but it wasn't the most impactful part of that conversation. And as soon as he was refreshed, he recalled it. And truthfully, and I think in a very common-sense way, said, oh, yes, that did happen, but look how much we're able to accomplish in other conversations. And I think the prosecutor made a really strong point of that in his summation. And I think even the recorded conversation that related to Karen McDougal, which was less than 96 seconds in, you know, the important part of it, also makes the point that a lot can be accomplished. And so, I don't think that was the aha moment that Todd Blanche tried to make it out to be. And in fact, I think it kind of to hurt him once the evidence said, yes, both these things can happen at the same time was brought back to bear. COLLINS: You said that you talked to Michael Cohen. I'm assuming that's today. I mean, what did he make of it -- was both sides talking about his credibility in the sense of obviously Todd Blanche called him the GLOAT, the greatest liar of all time in his closing argument. He did use the word liar, it seemed like every other five seconds in conjunction with Michael Cohen's name. But then Josh Steinglass also addressed that with the jury and said, you know, we didn't go and pick him up from the witness story. He's not an ideal witness. It was essentially his implication there saying that Trump was the one who surrounded himself with Michael Cohen. I wonder what he made of that testimony today. PERRY: Yes, that was -- Elie will back me up on this. That's a tried- and-true trick of the prosecution. They say, we would like to bring, you know, nuns and boy scouts to you as witnesses, but we're not the ones who picked them. It's the defendant who picks them as their co- conspirator. So, that was expected. And I think, you know, I have to hand it to the prosecution. A lot of times the prosecutors will kind of eat -- you know, eat that and just say, look, we know he's not -- you know, he's lied a lot and he's done this and that. Here, I think they were really honorable in supporting him and all the different ways in which he was corroborated, in which also the jury could count on the fact that he was now telling the truth, that he has turned a corner, as he said, I think, in a part of the testimony that was really emotional and really impactful. And I watched the jury listening to Michael Cohen talk about his journey and about how he came to this place that has really cost him and his family so much. COLLINS: You're representing Michael Cohen, but you also know Todd Blanche. What did you make of him saying to the jury, don't send Donald Trump to prison based on Michael Cohen's words, which he was later reprimanded by the judge over? PERRY: Yes, Elie and I have seen that trick also many times. There are a lot of tricks here, right? I mean, people who have -- who've been around the courtroom will see them. And it's a classic jury nullification argument. They are trying a little backdoor trick, right, to tell the jury, like, don't, don't put this guy in prison. This is where he'll end up, particularly in a case of this magnitude, and that's so unprecedented when you have a former president and a presidential candidate. They -- he wanted to backchannel to the jury that, you know, the import of what they might be doing by convicting him. And it's totally against the rules. The judge was right to admonish him. And, you know, he thought, why not go for it? Because if we get an acquittal, we're done. And if -- you know, I may as well just go for it. So, he's not going to be reversed on it. NORMAN EISEN, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: Danya, I know you can't talk about the preparation and the attorney-client privilege that you did with Michael, but I do want to ask you about one signature moment that really stood out for me in Cohen's testimony and his connection with the jury, and maybe you'll tell us how that came to be. I noticed that as he got comfortable on this stand, he would turn away from Hoffinger, who was examining him and talk directly to the jury and the jury would focus on him, almost like they were having a conversation together. Was that something -- just tell us one thing, was that something you practiced in prep? PERRY: Well, I appreciate you noting that. And Anderson, I appreciate you noting his demeanor on the stand. And as you say, that's not the Michael Cohen everyone knows. [20:40:00] But I will say, yes, we spent a lot of time in preparation. But this was truly all heartfelt. I do believe he's turned a corner and he's a different person than the Michael Cohen that you heard on those recordings or even that he -- the way he presents sometimes in his podcast. There was a moment where Michael was, you know, very cool and his demeanor was, you know, understated. And then there was that moment where the -- where Todd Blanche played -- COOPER: Oh, my God, I was there for that. And that was crazy. PERRY: I was like, oh my God, COOPER: I was like -- I hadn't hear the podcast. I was like, oh, my God. PERRY: But that's a persona. You know, he takes on this dramatic -- you've been on his podcast. I've been on his podcast. He -- you know, he presents in a certain way. He's an entertainer. But that's not -- the Michael Cohen that showed up for court is the Michael Cohen who is did have a change of heart and decided as much as it put him in harm's way and his family that he was going to wear the white hat and, you know, do what he thinks is the right thing. COOPER: Daniel Perry, thank you so much. Really good to have you. Appreciate it. Everyone else stay with us. Just say, we're going to dive deeper into the Stormy Daniels payments and catch the kill scheme at the heart of this case with someone who knows the details very well. Ronan Farrow, who's investigative reporting this, has been extraordinary over the years, will be here next. (COMMERCIAL BREAK) [20:45:35] COOPER: Welcome back. We want to return focus to what prosecutor's claim is powerful evidence that exists beyond the testimony of Michael Cohen. They were speaking of the testimony of former National Enquirer publisher David Pecker, and evidence detailing what's become known as the catch and kill scheme involving, among others, Stormy Daniels and Karen McDougal. Something our next guest has reported extensively on. We're joined now by journalist Ronan Farrow, author of the book, 2019 bestseller, "Catch and Kill," which explored the hush money scheme at the center of this trial and revealed a lot about it. Ronan, so the prosecution today called Pecker, the former CEO of the National Enquirer's parent company, utterly devastating. They called his testimony and that it "eliminates the whole notion that this was politics as usual." To you, is Pecker among the most important of all the witnesses called? RONAN FARROW, CONTRIBUTING WRITER, THE NEW YORKER: I think one of the canniest moves the prosecution made and how they built this case was to emphasize Pecker to the extent that they have and also to put him first. You have to understand, although the charges are about these payments to Stormy Daniels and the question of the intent behind them, whether and how they were concealed, and obviously, in the very protracted close today from Steinglass, the prosecutor, we got a tick tock of that in almost brutalizing detail. That said, the prosecution needed to recontextualize all of that with the prerequisite knowledge that this was part of, as you said, what they say is a catch and kill scheme, an effort to subvert the election hatched in that meeting that they talked about so much that pecker was present for in Trump Tower. So, especially in light of the fact that the later case, about the stormy payments specifically, had to deal with this double-edged sword of Michael Cohen being important connective tissue that they were conveying to the jurors and Michael Cohen having some evident questions about his credibility and his checkered history in the public eye that, of course, we saw the defense really sees on today. Especially in light of all of that Anderson, Pecker became very important. And the argument that the prosecution made today to jurors and to the public that Pecker was really their star witness rather than Michael Cohen became very important in the end. COOPER: Todd Blanche, you know, went -- in his sort of meandering closing statement, went down this road talking about catch and kill, saying essentially that Karen McDougal wasn't catch and kill, sort of raising questions that does catch and kill even exist? FARROW: Well, to give you a sense of that, I was in touch with sources around my reporting on AMI, then the parent company of the National Enquirer, just today, and the prevailing opinion within those circles, including senior AMI folks who were really involved in an oversight role as this play -- this scheme was playing out, the prevailing opinion seems to be that it strains credulity to accept the defense's argument here that Donald Trump just had no knowledge of this. And today, Todd Blanche argued, well, to assert that Donald Trump always knew about his business dealings, the prosecution had to deal with decades old books saying he's a micromanager, but it's really more than that. This is a clear-cut case where his representative Michael Cohen was doing something quite extraordinary as an act of loyalty. And one piece of evidence after another, what the prosecution called a mountain of evidence, seemed to suggest that he was behind it. So, the question really here is not whether there's sort of an evidence surface level case, it's going to hinge on, is it beyond a reasonable doubt and can they get all of those jurors on board? COOPER: Now, that some time has passed, I'm wondering what you make of the importance of Stormy Daniels testimony in this trial. FARROW: Well, Stormy Daniels was a really volatile courtroom moment. And I think like Michael Cohen, putting her on the stand was something of a risky maneuver for prosecutors. It was a double-edged sword. It certainly diverted the case they were making into tawdry underlying facts that aren't really germane to the charges being asserted. But they made a calculation that that was important, Anderson. It was important to establish that Donald Trump was in a state of urgency and desperation when this scheme was undertaken, that he really needed to conceal this in that particular window of time in order to remain electable, especially with women voters. That's also, of course, why they fought to introduce as much as they could about the Access Hollywood tape and only succeeded to a limited extent. But the prosecution is hoping that all of that will add up to jurors saying, OK, we get why this scheme was undertaken. [20:50:00] COOPER: It was also one of the things that Todd Blanche spent a fair amount of time today on essentially saying, well, that just wasn't the case, that the Access Hollywood tape really wasn't as big a deal as most people would probably remember it being or that -- you know, that these things were not as important as the prosecution is making them out to be. FARROW: And I think Hope Hicks' testimony was, like Stormy Daniels, quite pivotal in conveying to jurors, or at least prosecutors attempting to convey to jurors, that that's not quite right, that this was a campaign and a circle of people around Donald Trump that were thrust into crisis, and that there was a reason for him to undertake this extraordinary effort to, in the prosecution's terms, subvert the election. Whether jurors will care and whether the public will care as they process the information from this case, that's another question. But I do think in terms of making what was a pretty difficult case on the prosecution's part, this could have gone sideways in a lot of ways that it didn't. They really -- they cleared a lot of the hurdles they were looking to. COOPER: Yes. Ronan Farrow, thank you so much. FARROW: Great. Thanks, Anderson. COOPER: All right. We're now with the panel. Do you think the jury, Arthur, fully realizes the catch and kill scheme is as tawdry? I mean, Todd Blanche was essentially saying today that this is just how campaigns are, that this is just sort of business as usual. AIDALA: Well, after five hours from the prosecution, if he didn't do a good job somewhere in there explaining it, then shame on him. I think so. You know, there are times in the trial when you have to have guts as a defense attorney to stand up after a prosecution witness and say, I have no questions. And then in summation, you say, you know what? I didn't ask Stormy Daniels any questions. She doesn't matter. She doesn't matter. They only called her to embarrass him. They only called her to prejudice you. It doesn't matter if they fooled around or if they didn't fool around. You know what she really is, though. You heard it. It was her testimony, folks. She's an extortionist. She's an absolute extortionist. She wanted money. She wanted money for her story the same way she wanted money for sex her whole life. COOPER: We should point out that Todd Blanche did not say it doesn't matter whether or not this happened. He said my client denies it happened. AIDALA: Yes. And I don't -- COOPER: Which is obviously important for his client. AIDALA: You know, I disagree. I disagree with that strategy. And that's why, as a defense attorney, in my retainer agreement to this day, it says the attorney shall determine the strategy of the case. So, it's -- with the exception of whether the client testifies or not, the client overrules me. But in terms of what I say or what I don't say, they put it -- they sign on the dotted line, I determine how we question a witness. COOPER: So, you're an attorney who actually does have a retainer agreement? AIDALA: Yes, I have many ones. Anything over 3,500, I got it. That's the law in New York State. EISEN: And that line in Arthur's agreement is one of the reasons he's not representing Donald Trump. AIDALA: I'm going to take the fifth. I'll take the fifth on that one. EISEN: There are all these aphorisms among trial lawyers, slim to win, less is more. COOPER: What's slim to win? EISEN: Slim to win means shrink your case down, remove everything that is not essential, do not keep the jury until 8:00. It's -- these are theories of discipline, but the problem is that when you have Donald Trump for a client, there's plenty of evidence that he makes demands. We had reporting, Kaitlan had reporting, that he was pushing for Robert Costello. That was an absolute disaster for his case. Apparently, he liked -- AIDALA: Did that come up? Those of you who were there, did Costello come up? EISEN: It was mentioned in past. PHILLIP: Vaguely. It was mentioned in past. COLLINS: No, Costello came up. PHILLIP: Yes. I mean, it wasn't a lot. AIDALA: On both sides? PHILLIP: The defense mentioned him to -- very briefly, to talk about how he -- Michael Cohen claimed that they didn't have much of a relationship, they didn't have a legal relationship when that was not the case, or, it was a very minor part of -- COOPER: The prosecution made fun of him. The prosecution was like -- PHILLIP: Yes. It was a very minor part of the case. COOPER: Didn't they say something to the jury, like, well, you heard his testimony. So, you know what that's -- you know, the value of that. PHILLIP: I mean, one of the things sitting in the courtroom just listening to all -- the various parts of this case is that sometimes it does feel like you need to be a lawyer to sort through some of the things that are being discussed here and that's not what they've got. They have a jury -- AIDALA: Well, they got two lawyers -- PHILLIP: -- except for those two lawyers. AIDALA: -- on the jury. PHILLIP: Except for those lawyers, but they have a jury of just regular people. And I do wonder sometimes how this is all going to go down because it is -- it -- it's gotten in the weeds, both because the defense has brought things to the table that they shouldn't have, and also because the prosecution has too, it's gotten complicated and I'm not sure who that's going to benefit at the end of the day. HONIG: And to build on that point, what's going to happen the first thing tomorrow morning is the judge is going to spend an hour plus reading a 50, 60-page jury instruction. You want to talk about weeds, just wait for tomorrow. I mean, it's going to get deep. [20:55:00] And then because it's New York State, the written jury instruction does not go back into the jury room with them. So, we're going to see notes throughout the week saying, hey, can you explain to us again the third element of the second crime? So, you're right, Abby, the whole trick here is taking it out of the weeds and making it comprehensible to a human being. COOPER: More new details, excuse me, from inside court coming up. We'll also hear from Stormy Daniels' attorney and get his take on closing arguments. Plus, the pivotal moment ahead for the former president with a jury getting the case tomorrow morning. We'll be right back. (COMMERCIAL BREAK) The Source with Kaitlan Collins Aired May 28, 2024 - 21:00 ET THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED. [21:00:00] ANDERSON COOPER, CNN HOST: It is just before 9 PM, here in New York. The end of a nearly 12-hour day, for jurors, in the first of the former President's four criminal trials. They'll get the case, tomorrow. And with it, a job that no juries ever had before, deciding whether or not to convict a former President of the United States, and current candidate for the Office again, of as many as 34 felonies. Today, it was the final chance, for both sides, to persuade them. We're talking about it tonight. Joining the panel, retired New York City criminal judge, George Grasso; and jury consultant, Alan Tuerkheimer. Judge Grasso, it is great to have you with all your experience here. What do you make of closing arguments, tonight? I mean, five hours, two and a half, three hours, is that? GEORGE GRASSO, RETIRED NYC CRIMINAL COURT JUDGE: Well, it was a -- it was a long day. For the most part, I found it, I was totally zoned in. That went pretty -- went pretty quick. I felt, towards the last hour or so that Mr. Steinglass could have moved it along. And I didn't know if we needed like six book excerpts. COOPER: Yes. GRASSO: Yes. Yes. NORMAN EISEN, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: They were a choice, George. GRASSO: Choice excerpt. I think less would have been a little more with some of that. But I think -- I think, look, on the defense end to -- I think Todd Blanche was, I heard the word, meandering. COOPER: Yes. GRASSO: I certainly subscribe to that. COOPER: Yes. GRASSO: I think he made a real legal and tactical mistake, by diving into People's Exhibits 35 and 36, the Weisselberg notes. So, I think they are the smoking-gun evidence. And I think he dove into a minefield without a plan to get -- to get through it. COOPER: Do you think he should not have even brought those up? GRASSO: If anything, I wouldn't -- he like lead with it. COOPER: Right. GRASSO: That's not him -- those documents are not his strong suit. And I anticipated. And then I saw Steinglass just went to town. He really, he got an A-plus on that. He had both documents up. You've got Weisselberg's handwriting on the documents, laying out the scheme, the $420,000. You got McConney on a separate document number 36 with his handwriting, parroting the same scheme. And just so we have a trifecta, on 35, you got Cohen's handwriting too. KAITLAN COLLINS, CNN HOST: Well and one thing that Steinglass seemed to drill in on was he was seen to be making fun of Todd Blanche. That was kind of the tone that he tried to adopt the whole time. But he was saying, this idea that Todd Blanche is arguing that because these documents exist show that no crime was committed here, that no documents were falsified, because you can see them. He was saying, there never would be a business falsification case ever-- GRASSO: Yes. COLLINS: --because they would just destroy them. And if they existed, they would say, well, it's not a crime. GRASSO: Yes. COLLINS: And that was something he kind of, he looked to the committee and said, you almost have to -- to the jury and said, you almost have to laugh at the way Mr. Blanche explained it to you. You've been in there every single day. You sit in the same seat, for people who don't know. GRASSO: Yes. COLLINS: Everyone else has to fight for a seat. He has his own same seat, which I'm obsessed with. But I'm wondering what you make of how that sat with the jury as they're watching this. GRASSO: You mean what Blanche did with the-- COLLINS: On how Steinglass kind of turned it around? GRASSO: Oh, I think -- I think putting it all together, I think if it's a tennis match, I mean, Steinglass just nailed them. He put it over the net and killed it. And I think the jury -- this is a smart jury. I mean, we all look at the same jury. We see the same jury. We were there for the -- Norman and I were there for the questioning of the jurors. These are people, who want to be there. They could have just raised their hand, if they didn't want to be there. They would have -- they would have left. They've been through the whole process. Today was day 21. They're clearly paying attention. This was not over their head. COOPER: Alan? GRASSO: They got this. COOPER: Alan, you're a jury consultant. There's a lot of talk about the length of the closing arguments. Had you ever come across jurors, who were so annoyed about the duration that it actually impacted their votes? ALAN TUERKHEIMER, JURY CONSULTANT: I don't think it impacted their votes. And I think since both sides went excessively long, with their closings, I think it's probably a draw, in terms of which side seemed to be a little more tedious, a little more in the weeds, a little more on extraneous information that they didn't need. So, I think each side, they did OK, they did a good job. But they missed delivering stellar closings. Now, the defense, I think, did what it had to. It raised some questions about fraudulent intent, on the part of Trump, regarding the invoices, surrounding the payments. But they were a little gratuitous with some cheap shots, at Michael Cohen and a little gimmicky. Prosecution, I think, was a little more streamlined. They give a timeline, laid out the elements, and the actual verdict questions jurors are going to have. But the State also took a long time. So, at this point, it's about deliberation advocacy. And I would guess that of the 12 jurors, maybe four of them are pretty firmly convinced of guilt or innocence, and then another four are leaning in one direction or the other. And then, four are waiting for deliberations to make a decision. COOPER: And Judge, if a jury can't reach a decision, if they're deadlocked, there's something called an Allen charge. GRASSO: Right. COOPER: That the judge can give to them. GRASSO: Right. COOPER: What is that? GRASSO: It's basically, it's kind of like looking at them. You took an oath. I believe in you. You believe in me. COOPER: Yes, but -- ELIE HONIG, CNN SENIOR LEGAL ANALYST: That's the nice-- GRASSO: We can do this. HONIG: --this is the nice way it's done. There's a mean way it's done. COOPER: Is this -- is this like putting the thumbscrews? EISEN: Yes. [21:05:00] GRASSO: Well, well, well, no, Merchan is going to do it nicely. You know, he's. HONIG: Yes. GRASSO: But that -- but that's where-- COOPER: So, wait, you can do the Allen charge nice, or you can do it rough. Is that what you're saying? GRASSO: Well, I think what may very well get us to the verdict here is I think Merchan has a ton of goodwill with this jury, a ton of goodwill with this jury. I think if -- for no other reason, they're not going to want to disappoint him. COOPER: He's been protecting the jury, in the sense of like, kind to them. We'd like to go along. But if any one of you has any issue, we won't do it. And they didn't go along one day, because-- GRASSO: 100 percent. COOPER: --some juror couldn't do it. GRASSO: 100 percent. So, he's got a lot of goodwill in the bank there. ARTHUR AIDALA, CRIMINAL DEFENSE ATTORNEY: Judge Grasso, can I -- and since you have the experience here, could you tell us what a missing witness charge is? Because that is in the realm of possibilities. I don't think Judge Merchan has ruled publicly-- GRASSO: Yes. AIDALA: --whether he's going to give a missing witness charge. But regarding Weisselberg? GRASSO: Yes. AIDALA: Just tell them what that means. GRASSO: Yes-- AIDALA: Because that's a huge win for the defense-- GRASSO: Well. AIDALA: --if he gives a missing witness charge. GRASSO: Here's why I don't think they're going to give it. Because Arthur, let me tell you-- (CROSSTALK) AIDALA: Yes, could you just tell us about this first? GRASSO: Yes. It's got to be a witness that's peculiarly -- peculiarly under the control of the People. So, what that would typically mean, someone's locked up. You're the defense attorney. You can't-- AIDALA: Well he's locked up. GRASSO: Yes. But they could get them. Merchan called that bluff. AIDALA: But he's going to -- but no but he's -- the defense said we're going to-- GRASSO: Well-- AIDALA: --he would take the Fifth, if we call him. GRASSO: Well-- AIDALA: But the prosecutor could give him immunity. GRASSO: Well let me answer the question. I was in the courtroom, Norman was in the courtroom, when that issue came up. And Merchan said -- because it came up, because I actually thought that the D.A. was playing a little bit of a game with the exit agreement with the $2 million that they wanted to be able to get that in evidence. And then, Merchan said, well, did you try and get him yet? He asked him that question. And then Steinglass was kind of hemming and hawing with that a little bit. So, Merchan says, OK, what about we bring him in, we bring Weisselberg in, outside the presence of the jury, and we question him? Blanche, without -- in a heartbeat, jumped up, he's not on the witnesses list, Judge, we're not ready for him. We don't. And it was so obvious he was -- he was objecting. And then Merchan, and the way Merchan does it, he looked at him, and he said, oh, so this is the first time you're considering that Allen Weisselberg might be a witness in this case? After Merchan did that, and it was obvious he could have brought him in if he wanted. He's not interested in bringing him in, to try and say this is peculiarly under the control of the government. So you get that charge, Arthur. That's why I don't see it. ABBY PHILLIP, CNN HOST: Yes, neither. I mean, it's -- in that instance, neither side wanted Weisselberg to come in. Not to mention the fact that even if Weisselberg were to testify, it's not clear that he would be a witness for the prosecution. That is not clear at all. COLLINS: He definitely wouldn't. AIDALA: Did the defense harp on it in summation? EISEN: No. AIDALA: Did the defense harp on it? PHILLIP: No. Because they don't want-- EISEN: It was very interesting. PHILLIP: They don't want him to come in either. EISEN: Judge-- AIDALA: No, but in summation, it's too late. I'd say like, where's Weisselberg? This is his writing. Here is Exhibit 35. Judge Grasso is really upset about this. It's all his handwriting. PHILLIP: You know what? (CROSSTALK) AIDALA: Where is he, folks? PHILLIP: Arthur? AIDALA: They have the burden. PHILLIP: They did that with some other witnesses. They made that point, right? Blanche basically made that point, on a number of occasions, saying, you know, the prosecution, they didn't bring in any lawmakers, to talk about the impact of the Access Hollywood tape. They didn't bring in that person. They didn't bring in this person. They did it kind of obliquely, but they did not do it for Weisselberg. And I thought that was extremely notable. GRASSO: Yes. EISEN: The most ridiculous example of this was when the defense tasked the prosecution with not bringing in Don Jr. and Eric. PHILLIP: Right. Right. Yes. EISEN: It was another one of those-- PHILLIP: Because they were also people, who signed the checks. EISEN: --that misfired. PHILLIP: Yes. EISEN: And Arthur, I can tell you, we're not getting a missing witness instruction. Because we sat through at lengthy charging conference, it was not discussed. It's not in any of the submissions. Not happening. AIDALA: So maybe in the -- so like OK, I got you. EISEN: Maybe they didn't request it-- (CROSSTALK) COOPER: We have like the ultimate two trial groupies, right here, with you. We love that. GRASSO: Yes. COOPER: You've been to like every motion. GRASSO: It would be a lot. And that's-- EISEN: It's even worse. Afterwards-- GRASSO: Yes. EISEN: --we stand in the hallway-- GRASSO: I think we're-- EISEN: --arguing about it, like it's Shakespeare. GRASSO: Yes, we'll do it again on Sunday. EISEN: For hours. COLLINS: The one thing Trump keeps talking about, and he's complaining about, tonight, is that he can't use the reliance-on-counsel argument, which was something that was settled, over six weeks ago, when they were first making this call, of saying he can't say that he was relying on legal advice of Michael Cohen, when Michael Cohen told him the agreement was airtight and bulletproof. And now, he is increasingly angry about that and keeps bringing it up. Even though the judge made clear, during the jury instruction debate that you all, I assume both of you were in last week, that that was -- that was long gone. That was never even going to be an option here. [21:10:00] GRASSO: Well, it's such a bogus issue. Because Pecker is already -- David Pecker has already testified that he didn't provide the counsel with pertinent information. He just, here, take a look at this. None of the background information, none of the -- none of the things going on behind-the-scenes with campaign and money, they're not being reported. It's just like here, Counsel, look at in half hour. Yes, this is good. Trump knows that. Trump's lawyers know that. And, they just want to try and muddy the waters with it. But it wasn't like they got it a legitimate opinion from their General Counsel. COOPER: Yes. GRASSO: I was general counsel for the police department for five years. You're going to ask me for an opinion? Submit all the relevant, pertinent information. Don't hold back information, and then take my -- Deputy Commissioner Grasso's opinion, and then hold that up as a legal opinion, because it's not. And that's exactly the game they're trying to pull here. HONIG: Judge, if I can -- if I can ask you. Do you see any potential appellate issue with the way the D.A. has charged this case? For the first time in New York history, they've essentially-- GRASSO: Yes. HONIG: --imported a federal campaign finance violation into a state charge. GRASSO: Norman and I have been talking about this ad nauseam. HONIG: I figured. GRASSO: Yes. AIDALA: Seems like you guys are talking about everything. HONIG: Shockingly. AIDALA: Even on Sunday. HONIG: Well I want to hear where the Judge comes out. I know where Norm comes out. I want to hear where you come out. GRASSO: Well, I mean, it still is, I give the -- overall, I give the D.A. very high marks, absent six book excerpts, on this summation. But it's still a little tricky to figure out how the -- I think as far as the falsified business records? HONIG: Right. GRASSO: I think it's almost slam-dunk right now that they've got Trump pretty solid. I think that this summation for the D.A. buttoned up a lot of that. HONIG: Yes. GRASSO: But connecting that now, what are we connecting it to? How will we know? There is a ton of evidence, of testimony, that this was all being done for the campaign. It's been covered up. It was covered up the way it was covered up, because it was an unreported campaign contribution. But how has that been imputed to Trump yet? HONIG: Right. GRASSO: And what is the actual? I still have not seen the final charges to the jury. I'm going to be, as a real nerd on this, I'm going to be like zoning right in. I want to see where they're using willful, what they're going to be using for state of mind. And whatever they use, I think that this is definitely a potential appellate issue. AIDALA: But Judge, to Elie's point? GRASSO: Yes. AIDALA: A lot of appellate issues, a lot of cases that are overturned are overturned on the judge's charge to the jury. GRASSO: Yes. AIDALA: Basically, you gave the rules of the game, to the people deciding the game inaccurately. And you've been there every day. GRASSO: Yes. AIDALA: For you to say, after summations, prosecutors have done a great job, but it's a little willy-nilly-- GRASSO: Well-- AIDALA: --on how they're going to get there-- GRASSO: --I'm saying that because-- AIDALA: --gives me pause about whether this case should have been brought at all. GRASSO: Well, I -- you know what? I think it's -- I disagree with you on that. And we've had this conversation on your radio show. AIDALA: Every day. GRASSO: I-- AIDALA: Every day. Every day. GRASSO: I think it was -- there was something rotten in Denmark there. And I think there's a mountain of evidence that -- and I think that that -- the Trump Tower conspiracy meeting, August of 2015, I think the defense summation fell really flat, when they tried to say that like David Pecker had no knowledge of what catch-and-kill, because he didn't use the word. There's a 130,000, 150,000, 30,000 that-- AIDALA: I know, Judge. But-- GRASSO: No, let me finish. That was clearly -- that was clearly-- AIDALA: Sure, judge. GRASSO: --that was clearly directed towards the campaign. At least, to me, going there every day, you'd have to be kind of deaf, dumb and blind, not to see that. AIDALA: But a minute ago, you said it's willy-nilly. GRASSO: Will that be -- will-- AIDALA: A minute ago. GRASSO: Well -- well -- well I'm talking about it. AIDALA: You do like this, like you're riding a bike. GRASSO: No. No. I'm talking-- AIDALA: You're like it's a little willy-nilly. GRASSO: No. I'm talking about it in the context of what is the charge going to look like? How is the jury going to process it? And what is it going to look like on appeal? Because there is some new ground being made here, so. AIDALA: Last question. In all your years on the bench, over a decade, did you ever have a charge that it was the first time ever you created the charge? It didn't exist anywhere else? I could give you the answer. The answer is no. GRASSO: Well, I never had a guy, who ran for president, who thought it was a good idea to get some friends together. AIDALA: Well there we go. GRASSO: And got a lot of money together. We had -- we had-- AIDALA: And now we have what's called selective prosecution. GRASSO: --we had -- no, we have -- we have something here that never happened before. These laws were never used the way they were used before, because they were never, at least from what I've seen, abused the way they were abused by this particular defendant. Now, does that ultimately lead to a bulletproof -- a bulletproof verdict, if they do choose to find him guilty? We'll have to see. But I think the evidence was there to bring the case. I think the evidence is there to convict. But we'll have to ultimately see if he's convicted what the appellate division does. AIDALA: There you go, with Judge Grasso. COOPER: We got to go. But it's what I see -- you've looked in the eyes of a lot of jurors. [21:15:00] Watching the jury, as I'm sure you have, what do you make of how they have been paying attention? GRASSO: They're paying attention. COOPER: Yes. GRASSO: I'm taking notes vigorously. And so, I'm always into the notes. But then I just like randomly look up, and scan. And these people are paying attention. They're serious. What do you think, Norman? EISEN: As smart and dedicated and focused a jury, as I've ever seen, in over 30 years. But never sitting above the courtroom, wearing the robe. GRASSO: Yes. COOPER: Judge Grasso. Wow. So great to have you. Thank you so much. GRASSO: Pleasure is mine. Thank you. COOPER: Alan Tuerkheimer, as well. Thank you so much. Appreciate it. Coming up next. John Berman's back with more details from the trial transcript. Later, how today's closing arguments landed with voters, specifically in Georgia, people from both sides of the political spectrum. They'll be talking to our Gary Tuchman, live, as our special primetime coverage continues. (COMMERCIAL BREAK) COOPER: Because closing arguments went so long, tonight, until just before 8 PM, we're still waiting to get the final installment of the trial transcript. But what we've got is revealing enough. John Berman is back with more details. What are you looking at? [21:20:00] JOHN BERMAN, CNN ANCHOR: So, Danya Perry, who represented Michael Cohen, was on, a few minutes ago. And she was saying that Michael Cohen actually counted the number of times that Todd Blanche, the defense attorney, called him a liar. So did we. The number we came up with, Anna Glickman, my producer, between calling Michael Cohen a liar, that he was lying, he lied, or just lie, or perjury, 78 times. 78 times, Todd Blanche said it. COLLINS: Too close. PHILLIP: Close. BERMAN: and this is what one of the things that Blanche said, directly about Michael Cohen. He's literally like an MVP of liars. He lies constantly. He's lied to Congress. He lied to prosecutors. He lied to his family, his business associates. He lied to his bosses. He lies to reporters. He lies to Federal Judges. A little bit later, he said, it's like what people, when they talk about with athletes like Michael Jordan as the GOAT; Tiger Woods as the GOAT; Tom Brady as the GOAT, these athletes are the "Greatest of All Time," the best among their peers. Michael Cohen is the GLOAT. He's literally the Greatest Liar of All Time. And then, the prosecutor, Josh Steinglass, later said, we didn't choose Michael Cohen to be our witness. We didn't pick him up at the witness store. The Defendant chose Michael Cohen to be his fixer, because he was willing to lie and cheat on Mr. Trump's behalf. In this case, there is, literally, a mountain of evidence of corroborating testimony that tends to connect the Defendant to this crime; from Pecker, to Hicks, to the Defendant's own employees, to the documents, to the Defendant's own Tweets and rallies, and his own words on that recorded conversation. The list goes on and on. It's difficult to conceive of a case with more corroboration than this one. COOPER: I just want to point out both attorneys misused the word, literally. HONIG: Yes. COOPER: It's just -- it's just a dramatical-- BERMAN: We were talking beforehand if I should break that up. COOPER: --make sure, yes. BERMAN: We opted not to. COOPER: It's just a little pet peeve of mine. BERMAN: Another interesting thing is Todd Blanche used the word, Michael Cohen, 251 times. So, he mentioned Michael Cohen 251 times in his closings. He said President Trump or Defendant, 235 times. So more Cohen and Trump. If you want to know what Todd Blanche, who he wants this case to be about, it's right there. AIDALA: You should never say the word, defendant. When you're a defense attorney, you never refer to your client as the defendant. He's always Mr. So-and-so, and you put your hand on their shoulder, you know. EISEN: I know. He's never -- to Todd Blanche, he's never Mr. So-and- so. AIDALA: Well the President. EISEN: He's President Trump. AIDALA: Well, but apparently, you referred to him as-- EISEN: President. AIDALA: --as the defendant. I mean, look, he has to go after Cohen. And again, I would have just highlighted and -- he lied to all those people, the list you just gave us, Berman. But -- and then I would say and he lied to you folks. BERMAN: He did do that. AIDALA: Do you really think-- BERMAN: He did-- AIDALA: --he doesn't want Trump to get acquitted? PHILLIP: And he-- AIDALA: You really think that's not in his best interest, for President Trump to get -- I'm sorry, do you really think he wants to get him acquitted, not convicted? He's selling shirts of the guy behind bars. Have you -- and using your commonsense, ladies and gentlemen, have you ever heard a case? Think of Law & Order. Think of every movie you've watched. Have you ever seen the main witness is selling T-shirts of the defendant who he is testifying against, wearing a -- in a T-shirt with the guy behind bars? If that doesn't tell you he's lying to you, right here, in this trial, I don't know what is. COLLINS: Well, and Steinglass sought to really go -- he spent, it seemed like the first half hour that he was up there, talking about all the times that Todd Blanche called Michael Cohen a liar, and was saying we're not asking you to love Michael Cohen. He was saying Michael Cohen made his bed. But he was saying also one, on Michael Cohen making money, said you can't judge him for making money, off the people that he surrounded himself with, drawing it all back to saying, Donald Trump was the person who put Michael Cohen in this position, and hired him for all these years. And another interesting point, and on the Trump going to jail, he said, quote, anyone in Cohen's shoes would want the defendant to be held accountable. That's how they addressed that. But he also made an interesting point. He said that the defense was trying to have it both ways, with Michael Cohen, which is to say he's a liar, and he's a thief. But also, this idea that he was not -- he was not being reimbursed, that he was being paid these legal fees that are totally aboveboard, but also he got $60,000 that were grossed up for taxes, which is not as you well know, how legal fees work. They were arguing the defense was making two different arguments about Michael Cohen that conflicted with one another. COOPER: They were also pointing out that Michael Cohen wants credit for things, and certainly wants attention for the things he has done. So, the idea that he would have done this without Donald Trump's knowledge, just is not -- that he's going to want the -- to get the credit from Donald Trump, for having done this. PHILLIP: They were also suggesting when it -- when they talked about the credit issue, that Michael Cohen was trying to carefully tailor his testimony, to speak to things that other witnesses have testified about, like Hope Hicks. He carefully tailored his testimony, the defense argued, to try to make Donald Trump look worse. They were trying to argue that Michael Cohen was being strategic, about trying to create an evidence pool that looked bad for Donald Trump. I thought that was important for them to say. I'm not sure that it really did the whole job. [21:25:00] But it was important for them to sort of point out that the inconsistencies add up to something, when it comes to Cohen, which is that he has an interest, in seeing Donald Trump in jail, and that he's willing to say anything, and he also knows exactly what to say, to make Trump look bad. EISEN: I thought it was interesting, how Josh Steinglass, the prosecutor, dealt with the Michael Cohen issue, because he took the most damaging testimony, upfront. He stepped -- before he did his long chronological summary, he took that moment. You and I were sitting very near each other, for that moment, Anderson, when he confronted Michael Cohen with that October 24th phone call, and said you didn't mention that it was about this 14-year-old prank caller. And Cohen, we heard it from his lawyer on the prior hour that Danya Perry said well, my recollection was refreshed, there's plenty of time to do it. Steinglass took the bull by the horns on that, with his wonderful little bit of theater, of doing that phone call, and playing out how there was enough time. He fronted it. And then, the -- it was a one- two punch to defend Michael Cohen. Then he spent another close to four hours on the corroboration of Michael Cohen. That's why we were all kept there so long. COOPER: Yes. EISEN: I had to sprint. I don't know how Kaitlan got here before me, because she was still in court, when I ran out. COLLINS: Fast. EISEN: She's got that anchor magic. AIDALA: But Elie, did you-- EISEN: I had to sprint. And he did it -- hold on, Arthur. AIDALA: All right. EISEN: He did it for-- AIDALA: I'm not going anywhere. EISEN: And I'm going to do it for four hours. AIDALA: All right. OK, all right. EISEN: You did the cross-examination you wanted to do. AIDALA: I want to ask my man, Elie, a question. EISEN: I'm going to do my prosecution closing. AIDALA: That's all. EISEN: He, for four hours, he corroborated Cohen. And he wanted to make a point, you can believe him, but also there is a mountain. And he made the jury suffer a little bit through that mountain. But the suffering was the point. AIDALA: Speaking of suffering, might I be heard? Elie, when-- EISEN: Your motion is granted. AIDALA: Thank you. When you were a prosecutor, and you were building up your case, did you do it in a -- in a way, like a timestamp way? Or did you do it issue by issue? Did you do it chronologically, or issue by issue? HONIG: I would try to take it chronologically, right? You start thematic, you end thematic. But you want the jury to be able to follow it. This is a hard story to follow. A lot of it happened a long time ago. There's meetings. There's calls. So, I would take it linear. I would never go four hours. AIDALA: Yes. HONIG: But I want to say this also. We prosecutors are so spoiled. We have every advantage. I can recognize that now. I did it for 14 years. But take for example, the point that Steinglass made. A very effective rhetorical argument, about we didn't choose him as our witness, the defendant chose him. That's bull. The prosecution chose him, when they chose to charge this case. They own him. They're the ones putting them in front of the jury, saying believe him beyond a reasonable doubt. But Steinglass, and me and my old days, knows that you're getting -- we get the last word, and they're not going to be able to make that rebuttal. AIDALA: And they're the ones, who decided not to charge him for stealing $30,000 from this exact transaction. COOPER: But, I mean, Donald Trump is the one, who chose to surround himself with-- HONIG: For sure. COLLINS: And-- COOPER: --a certain type of people. And Michael Cohen was one of them. And he -- Michael Cohen seemed to flourish under the system, and the cast of characters that Donald Trump wanted to surround him with. COLLINS: And assigned him to one of the most sensitive undertakings that happened, in the 2016 campaign-- COOPER: Right, yes. COLLINS: --which is much as the defense tried to downplay the 2016 Access Hollywood tape. We were all there. We all witnessed it. Michael Cohen was in charge of dealing with that. COOPER: Right. HONIG: Yes. COOPER: We're going to take a break. John Berman, thank you. Coming up next, we're going to speak to the attorney for Stormy Daniels, whose alleged sexual encounter with Donald Trump is how all of this began, and discuss why the prosecution says her allegation is the quote, "Motive," for this case. (COMMERCIAL BREAK) [21:32:56] COOPER: The defense has said the former President did not have a sexual encounter with Stormy Daniels. Today, they also argued that this case is about the documents, not about her. Prosecutors, however, said that, believing her testimony only reinforces why the former President would want to buy her silence. Why else, they asked, did they work so hard to try to discredit her? According the prosecution, in the simplest terms, Stormy Daniels is the motive. This is how she described that alleged 2006 sexual encounter, when I talked to her, in 2018, for "60 Minutes." (BEGIN VIDEOTAPE) STORMY DANIELS, ALLEGES AFFAIR WITH DONALD TRUMP: I went to the restroom. You know, I was in there for a little bit and came out and he was sitting, you know, on the edge of the bed, when I walked out, perched. COOPER: And when you saw that, what went through your mind? DANIELS: I realized exactly what I'd gotten myself into. And I was like, ughh, here we go. And I just felt like maybe it was sort of, I had it coming for making a bad decision, for going to someone's room alone, and I just heard the voice in my head, well, you put yourself in a bad situation and bad things happen, so you deserve this. COOPER: And you had sex with him? DANIELS: Yes. COOPER: You were 27, he was 60. Were you physically attracted to him? DANIELS: No. COOPER: Not at all? DANIELS: No. COOPER: Did you want to have sex with him? DANIELS: No. But I didn't -- I didn't say no. I'm not a victim, I'm not-- COOPER: It was entirely consensual. DANIELS: Oh, yes, yes. COOPER: You work in an industry where condom use is -- is an issue. Did the -- did he use a condom? DANIELS: No. COOPER: Did you ask him to? DANIELS: No. I honestly didn't say anything. (END VIDEOTAPE) COOPER: The defense reiterated, today that the former President denies the encounter. Joining us is Stormy Daniels' attorney, Clark Brewster. You think this is going to end quickly? You think a jury could come back quickly with a verdict? CLARK BREWSTER, STORMY DANIELS' ATTORNEY: Yes, I think so. I think the issues are pretty defined. Even though there's 34 counts, I really the -- the facts to the -- to the law, in this case, will be easily applied, in my view, notwithstanding the long closing arguments today. And I predict they'll come back pretty quickly, if not tomorrow, then Thursday. COLLINS: What did you make of how, in Todd Blanche's closing arguments today, he continued to reiterate that Trump denies that that encounter that Stormy Daniels was just telling Anderson about, years ago, and also testified to, ever even happened. [21:35:00] BREWSTER: Yes. I think his statement was like met at one time, on a golf course, for a picture. But that left out the story about the number of times he called her, that people were witness to, that she'd gone to Trump Tower, and they had pictures up there, that she'd gone to his bungalow in Hollywood. So, I mean, there's a lot of things that he said that weren't true. COLLINS: Well, I mean, and she testified that it did happen. BREWSTER: Yes. COLLINS: Donald Trump obviously did not testify to whether or not it happened. Do you -- I mean, do you think he should have, if he wants to continue denying it? BREWSTER: Well, he has an absolute right not to testify, in a court of law, when he's charged, criminally. And so, we respect that. But he said so many things about it outside the courtroom, that you would have thought that he would want to wear that on his sleeve in the courtroom. But he didn't. HONIG: Clark, do you think that the prosecution needed to call Stormy Daniels, legally, or narratively? BREWSTER: Originally, when I first met with the prosecution, it was my position, why do you need to call her? HONIG: Yes. BREWSTER: I've read the indictment. I didn't think they needed to call her. But I think they really wanted to lay the context for why Trump would have felt, this was a very important thing to keep on to the public view, and that it was something that she was credible. She had a persona in the public. And so, I think it was important, probably, for the jury to see her and understand. COLLINS: Well they described her-- PHILLIP: When the defense-- COLLINS: Go ahead. PHILLIP: Sorry. When the defense said that the allegations were already out there, they basically said that the idea that suddenly Stormy Daniels' story coming out, in 2016, would not have been that big of a deal, because they were essentially already in the public domain. Do you think there's any truth to that? BREWSTER: Well, I think there might be some truth to the fact that she'd made a statement, I think, back in 2011, but really hadn't caught traction until the Access Hollywood tape. The Access Hollywood tape put it into a just a, you know, four-corner defense for them. They had to do something, in my view, because she would have been a spokesperson that really would have lent credibility to the story, and would have told the truth, so. EISEN: Some-- COLLINS: Last time you were here, you told us that Stormy Daniels was so nervous, going to testify, that she actually wore a bulletproof vest-- BREWSTER: Yes. COLLINS: --on her way, inside court. I mean, obviously, she has security, and she was with them. What -- how is she spending these few days, as now the jury is about to get the case, in just a matter of hours? BREWSTER: Yes, I wouldn't say nervous. She wasn't nervous. She was fearful. And she was fearful about what couldn't be predicted that somebody might do something rash, or somebody might try to harm her or her family. And she really got gripped with fear. But when it came to getting on the stand, she was, I thought, she really showed transparency, and forthcoming, and met with cross- examination, and dealt well with it. COLLINS: But how is she feeling about this moment now, now that the jury is about to get the case, and as she's waiting to see what this verdict is going to be? BREWSTER: Well, she's been texting me, right up to this moment. So, she's decided not to do any interviews. She wants to stay out of the limelight. She doesn't want to have any bearing whatsoever on whatever the jurors may think. She wants her testimony to be what they've heard and make decisions about. And so, she's just chosen to not do any interviews. PHILLIP: Does she-- COOPER: Which I got to say, speaks very well to, to her that she doesn't want to influence this process until the jury renders a verdict. BREWSTER: Yes. The prosecutor shouldn't (ph) ask her not to make any statements, as the trial was getting closer. And she didn't. And she stayed out. She, I think, she responded a little bit in the Twitter- field. But for the most part, no interviews and stayed out. COLLINS: You want-- PHILLIP: You answered Elie's question, about whether or not you thought she should testify. Does she still think that it was the right thing, for her to actually take the witness stand? BREWSTER: I think so. We have a really good relationship. And I share with her what I think she should do. And then, she really has a voice in that and chooses her own course. But I think in the long run, if she were here, she would say she's glad that she showed up, and subjected herself to cross-examination, so that people could see, whether she was telling the truth. And I think they could see that. EISEN: On the topic of the cross-examination. Some of us, myself included, felt that she was actually stronger on cross. Would it have been wiser? One of the themes, as we've talked about today is less is sometimes more, Clark. Would it have been wiser for the defense simply not to cross-examine her? There were some tough moments on the direct. BREWSTER: My son was with me. And he's a trial lawyer. And we talked about how we might have cross-examined her. And the one thing is there's probably 30 questions that the defense lawyer could ask, that she would have agreed with him on. And they could have gotten to consensus on a lot of detail. But they went in, and challenged her early, and tried to really impugn her integrity, and just didn't go well for them. I think there could have been a real nice pathway, of leading questions, and getting consensus on facts. HONIG: Well now I'm intrigued. What are they? [21:40:00] BREWSTER: Well, there's some -- we could talk about it. But there's many. I mean, she wouldn't have resisted a lot of facts that would have been consistent with Trump's story, and the truth, truly. And the real issue is whether sex occurred, and how it unfolded. And that's where they parted with regard to the story. But there's a lot of consensus they could have reached, in a good examination. It wasn't done. EISEN: I would have just done all the questions on that she did not talk to Trump about the issues in this case, the 34 allegedly false records Trump -- in Trump's intent or not, in creating those records. She never had a conversation with him about the underlying alleged 2016 election conspiracy. So, she really doesn't have any information-- COLLINS: But they-- EISEN: --to advance the case. And she illustrates the distance that the prosecution has to travel for the actual issues in the case. BREWSTER: Yes. There's a lot of ways you could have approached it. But I think going for the issues that they could have agreed upon, would have been a good cross-examination for her. She really prides herself on being truthful and consistent. And I think they could have gotten a long way with that. Ultimately, though, the story would have come out, what happened. And ultimately what drove Trump to act in 2016-- COLLINS: I mean-- BREWSTER: --I think that's the case. COLLINS: --the prosecution ended today with one of their lines saying that Stormy Daniels was the motive here, that that's the simplest way to put it. The defense was arguing that she was extorting Trump. Because the prosecution was saying, well, this was out there, and he never chose to pay it until close to the election. Todd Blanche was arguing that this was extortion of a presidential candidate. What does she make of, of something like that? BREWSTER: Well, did Karen McDougal do it as well? I mean -- I mean, aren't they both as similar-situated, although the scheme and trying to silence them was slightly different? Stormy really had little to say. It was Keith Davidson, her lawyer, and they approached him, and he reported to her. It's far from extortion. And trying to make that argument, I think, the jury would see, as not very valid. COOPER: Clark Brewster, it's great to have you on again. Appreciate it. BREWSTER: Thank you. COOPER: Thank you so much. Coming up. 12 voters in the battleground state of Georgia speak with our Gary Tuchman, about their views on the case, and whether they would vote to convict or acquit. We'll be right back. (COMMERCIAL BREAK) [21:46:33] COOPER: This case will soon be in the hands of the 12 jurors. And after that, voters in the November presidential elections, which is only a little more than five months away. Our Gary Tuchman is in Georgia, a key battleground state, with 12 voters, representing a range of opinions, about the former President and the case. Gary, what are you hearing? GARY TUCHMAN, CNN NATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Anderson, we are here, in Atlanta, with 12 voters, who've done their best, to pay attention to the coverage of this trial. And we've watched the coverage of the closing arguments, tonight. Unlike the jury, in New York City, I've grilled these people, about their politics. I've asked them who they're going to vote for in November, because we want political diversity in this group. I feel we succeeded, because five of you say you're going to vote for Joe Biden, five of you say you're going to vote for Donald Trump. And two of you are undecided. The first thing I want to ask you, though, show of hands, who feels, think like a juror now, who feels that Donald Trump has been proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt? Raise your hand. One, two, three, four, five, six, seven. Who thinks that Donald Trump is not guilty? Raise your hand high. One, two, three, four. We have one undecided person then. Who's undecided? You're undecided. OK. I want to start with you, Ross (ph). You said you're going to vote for Donald Trump. But you think he's guilty. Why? ROSS (ph), GEORGIA VOTER: Yes, sir. I think he's guilty, because I don't think in his business dealings that he would not know what was going on with the hush money payments. TUCHMAN: OK. Deanna (ph), you said you're going to vote for Joe Biden. You feel Trump is guilty. Why? DEANNA (ph), GEORGIA VOTER: Correct. Yes, I believe that the evidence that was presented was pretty substantial, including the bank account statements, from Michael Cohen, and the series of checks that were signed off by Trump. TUCHMAN: Joe (ph), you say you're undecided about who you going to vote for in November. But you feel that Donald Trump is guilty. Why? JOE (ph), GEORGIA VOTER: I do, yes. I've -- same reason, I believe that the -- they proved the money trail, and they hid that for nefarious reasons. TUCHMAN: OK. Joe (ph) and Sandy (ph) are a couple. Sandy (ph) feels differently. She's ready to vote for Donald Trump. SANDY (ph), GEORGIA VOTER: Yes. TUCHMAN: And feels he's not guilty. Why do you feel that way? SANDY (ph): I think Michael Cohen is lack of -- a total lack of credibility as a star witness. He's proven to be dishonest, and admitted it as well. And now, we're supposed to believe him, so. TUCHMAN: OK. Robert (ph), you said you're ready to vote for Donald Trump and you feel he's not guilty. Tell me why. ROBERT (ph), GEORGIA VOTER: Yes, correct. I think, for me, it comes down to the burden of proof. And I don't feel the prosecution has laid out-- SANDY (ph): Yes. ROBERT (ph): --a real game plan, or really proved any of the allegations, beyond a reasonable doubt. TUCHMAN: Tony (ph) on the end is an attorney. She says she's ready to vote for Joe Biden. TONY (ph), GEORGIA VOTER: Yes. TUCHMAN: And feels Donald Trump is guilty. How come? TONY (ph): Yes. I mean, whether Trump intended to protect his family, or Stormy threatens to come forward, he still participated in falsifying documents and attempts to influence the election. I mean, if he wanted to pay the hush money, this happened in 2006, he would have paid it years ago. And the NDA from 2016 shows his awareness, of what took place. TUCHMAN: Yes. On the top row on the left, this is Scott (ph). Scott (ph) doesn't know who he's going to vote for November. And he doesn't know if Donald Trump is guilty or not guilty. How come you feel that way, at this point? SCOTT (ph), GEORGIA VOTER: I think the prosecution made it about Michael Cohen, when they let him open his mouth. And he turned out to be the worst star witness in the history of trials. So, good luck to the jurors, trying to figure out what's true, what's not. TUCHMAN: Well, you're the juror right now. But you're saying you haven't decided. You don't like Cohen. But you haven't decided that he's not guilty? SCOTT (ph): Yes, I -- as an American, I also didn't have the ability, to see things through an unfiltered lens. So that would have really helped. TUCHMAN: And that's what I've explained. We've done our -- you've done your best to follow this trial. DeLancey (ph), you're ready to vote for Joe Biden, at this point. You say Donald Trump's guilty. How come? [21:50:00] DELANCEY (ph), GEORGIA VOTER: I think Cohen is also not a very credible witness. But I think on the things that he said that mattered in the trial, it was backed up by the testimony from David Pecker, the controller for the Trump Organization, and also the silence of Allen Weisselberg, who did not testify, and wasn't called because of the non-disclosure agreement he signed for $2 million. TUCHMAN: This is DeLancey's (ph) son, Roscoe (ph)-- DELANCEY (ph): Yes. TUCHMAN: Voting in your first presidential election in November. ROSCOE (ph), GEORGIA VOTER: Yes. TUCHMAN: Says he's voting for Donald Trump. No? ROSCOE (ph): No. DELANCEY (ph): No. TUCHMAN: Got it. Just checking you there, Roscoe (ph), because I see how nervous you were. You're voting for Joe Biden, you said. ROSCOE (ph): Yes. TUCHMAN: But you think Donald Trump is guilty too. ROSCOE (ph): Yes, I, unlike most people, I kind of liked Michael Cohen's testimony. And I thought it was a strong one, based on what I heard from the court reports, and how the jury seemed to really resonate with them. And I think that the prosecution's attempt of trying to de-credit him, mostly served as a way of de-crediting Trump who was in charge of hiring him. TUCHMAN: OK. And this is Matt (ph), over here. Matt (ph) is ready to vote for Donald Trump in November, and he feels he's not guilty. How come? MATT (ph), GEORGIA VOTER: Yes, sir. I believe, basically, with the Michael Cohen's testimony, it was just going to be basically just a lie from the beginning, from the idea of just as information he gave. TUCHMAN: OK. And Matt (ph) and Belizza (ph) are a couple there. Belizza (ph), also, you're ready to vote for Donald Trump. You feel he's not guilty. How come? BELIZZA (ph), GEORGIA VOTER: Yes, I believe he's innocent, because I think he didn't violate any campaign financial law. TUCHMAN: OK. Belizza (ph) is from Colombia, originally. BELIZZA (ph): Yes. TUCHMAN: And she became an American citizen, a few years ago. BELIZZA (ph): Yes. TUCHMAN: So congratulations on that. And finally, Darrell (ph) is up there. He's ready to vote for Joe Biden, feels Donald Trump is guilty. How come? DARRELL (ph), GEORGIA VOTER: You can't explain -- can't explain away the receipts. He did what he did. And regardless if you think, is lying or not lying, the receipts remain, the documents remain. TUCHMAN: Final question for you, a show of hands here. If Donald Trump is found guilty, do any of you who say you're ready to vote for Donald Trump, would you consider switching to Joe Biden? Raise your hands. No consideration, even if he's found guilty. Other hand, if he's found not guilty, any of you voting for Joe Biden, would you then possibly consider Donald Trump? All right, everyone's sticking with the candidates they have right now. We may find out guilty or not guilty, as early as tomorrow. UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Yes. TUCHMAN: Anderson, back to you. COOPER: Gary Tuchman, thanks so much. Back now with the panel. Interesting to hear how-- AIDALA: It's not good news for Donald Trump, man. I mean, they go right along political lines. I mean, that seems to be it. PHILLIP: Yes. Yes. AIDALA: They went 100 percent. PHILLIP: Yes. AIDALA: And you're talking to a jury pool. Just so you know, the jury pool comes from the voter pool. The voter pool here, I don't know, Anderson, you might -- what is it, 83-17? COOPER: Something like that. AIDALA: Yes, something along those lines. So that is-- PHILLIP: It seems to take acquittal-- AIDALA: --not good news. PHILLIP: It seems to take acquittal completely off the table. I mean, if the-- AIDALA: Yes. Well I'm sure of that (ph). PHILLIP: --if the jury looks anything like that. Which is why, the reporting, tonight, from our own Paula Reid is that the Trump team, they think their best chance is a hung jury. And it may very well be if the jury decides that they really, really can't make this work. COLLINS: Yes. COOPER: And that's why this thing about the Allen charge potentially could be important. EISEN: Anything-- PHILLIP: And by the way, does the Allen charge have to happen, or you know-- (CROSSTALK) EISEN: Yes. If they're stuck, the judge will eventually tell them, you need to make a decision. AIDALA: Eventually is the key word. PHILLIP: Yes. AIDALA: It's usually it's this -- there's no law. It's usually the third time. So, you get one -- we're hopelessly deadlocked. And then can we hear this readback, that -- this readback? OK. Now, the next day or hours later, we're hopelessly deadlocked. And then, the third one, the judge says, look, we've all been killing ourselves, including the 12 of you, to reach a verdict. And it's not like -- if you pass, it's just going to be 12 other jurors, who are going to have to do this. COLLINS: But-- AIDALA: So please go, start negotiations from the beginning, start from like deliberations from the beginning, if need be, and reconsider the evidence as well. EISEN: But it has to be said, hung juries are rare, about 5 percent, 6 percent of all juries, a little more common in high-profile cases. This is a jury that I think every one of them is going to try hard to apply the law, to the evidence and come to a decision. COLLINS: I think the important thing, though, to look at that is that this is not just all happening, in what happens with this verdict. It's also the question of what is the aftermath, and since as we are five months out from the campaign. And the thing that we saw today that we have never seen, in this trial so far, is Biden sending his allies, and his campaign surrogates, to the park, outside of the court, to come and talk about this. AIDALA: Yes. COLLINS: And one of them was asked, why are you guys here? I believe it was the deputy campaign manager. And he said, we're here because you guys are here, talking to the reporters, who are outside, covering this trial. And I think that is a question. Because we are told President Biden is going to weigh in on this verdict, whatever it is, once we do have it from this jury. And so, it is a question of whether it's an acquittal, if it's something that helps fuel Trump's campaign, or if it's in any way, anything that impacts his run. AIDALA: When you guys were in the courtroom, today, I was outside the courtroom. I had a quick case on. And then, I came outside. And I didn't -- I'm talking to the court officer. I go, what's going on over there? It's pandemonium. And they're like, oh, Bob De Niro's over there, giving a speech. And then, when he left, I don't know what security was around him, but it was -- it was insane-- PHILLIP: Yes. [21:55:00] AIDALA: --like I've never insane, because there's so many such international media there to begin with. And it's Bobby De Niro. And they are just following him. And it was the Trump people are screaming. It was like nothing I've ever seen. PHILLIP: And it all raises the question about whether -- I mean, look, the Biden campaign can rationalize. The media is there, sure. But the American people have largely made up their minds about this guy, Donald Trump. They know how they feel, probably about this case. And it doesn't matter. At the end of the day, I think what the jury's verdict is, in terms of how people already feel about his guilt or innocence. HONIG: Which is why I thought that was such a fascinating exercise that Gary Tuchman just did. I mean, it was 100 percent political correlation-- EISEN: Yes. HONIG: --to verdict correlation. He had four Trump voters on that mock jury. Four not-guilty votes. That is remarkable. And look, this-- COLLINS: But they haven't been in the actual room. I mean, it's really hard to say. HONIG: Of course not. COLLINS: They haven't. It's very different when you're actually in the room. So, I don't think that anyone should -- I just don't want anyone watching that. HONIG: Do you think any of them would have changed based on what we just saw? COLLINS: I don't want anyone watching that to think it's a translation of what this jury is going to do. We don't know. HONIG: But it's a fact -- no, of course not. COOPER: It's also-- HONIG: But it's a fascinating exercise that it-- COOPER: Yes. HONIG: --that it breaks 100 percent. COLLINS: Yes, it is. HONIG: And the four that were against him that were for acquittal would never have come over. COOPER: Yes. HONIG: I don't care what they saw. That was clear. And same vice versa. This is -- there is a political aspect. It's inseparable here. COOPER: Thank you, everybody. The news continues. More of CNN's special coverage of the Trump hush money trial, right after the short break. I'll see you tomorrow. (COMMERCIAL BREAK) CNN NewsNight with Abby Phillip Aired May 28, 2024 - 22:00 ET THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED. (COMMERCIAL BREAK) [22:00:39] ABBY PHILLIP, CNN HOST: Good evening, everyone. Welcome to a special edition of NewsNight. I'm Abby Philip alongside Kaitlan Collins here in New York. Donald Trump's fate will soon be decided at the hands of a jury of his peers. And the prosecution wrapped up late tonight, just about two hours ago, following the defense earlier this morning. Now both sides tried to condense five weeks of testimony into their closing arguments today. It was their last and final chance to make their case to the jury before those 12 New Yorkers decide whether to let Donald Trump walk or make him the first president with a criminal conviction. The jury is expected to begin deliberating tomorrow after hearing the judge's instructions to them. KAITLAN COLLINS, CNN ANCHOR: You can see Trump earlier walking into Trump Tower. He did not speak, as he typically does when he leaves court today. But inside that room, jurors first heard from Trump's defense attorney, Todd Blanche, who laid out what he said were the top ten reasons to doubt this case against Trump. Their biggest focus was the prosecution's star witness, Michael Cohen, and they did not hold back, repeatedly slamming MVP of liars, the GLOAT, which Todd Blanche said was the greatest liar of all time, the human embodiment of reasonable doubt, and also telling the jury that Cohen lied to them, in particular, often. Prosecutors immediately began to try to reverse that when it was their turn to make their closing argument, reminding that same jury pool, and I'm quoting now, this case is not about Michael Cohen. This case is about Donald Trump. They also argue that Cohen is just part of this case against Trump and that there is a mountain of evidence in their view corroborating his testimony, saying it's difficult, quote, to conceive of a case with more corroboration than this one. PHILLIP: And in case you're wondering where Donald Trump's head was during the prosecution's argument, well, of course, he gave us some insights into that, posting twice on Truth Social during the break, writing, filibuster and boring. Remember, the jury isn't being asked to decide whether Michael Cohen is a liar. They're not being asked to decide whether or not Trump has had a one night stand with Stormy Daniels or not, or even the legality of the hush money payment itself. Their job is to decide whether Trump falsified business records in order to help his 2016 campaign, full stop. So, question is tonight did prosecutors prove that beyond a reasonable doubt? We've got a whole bunch of lawyers here to help us sort that out. Our panel is with us. Joining us now, former counsel to President Trump during his first impeachment Robert Ray, former assistant special Watergate prosecutor Nick Akerman, criminal defense attorney Mercedes Colwin and criminal and civil defense -- civil attorney Donte Mills. So, panel, this was a big day and I believe that you were in the courthouse today, right? NICK AKERMAN, FORMER WATERGATE PROSECUTOR: I was there for both summations. PHILLIP: The good, the bad and the indifferent. What did you take away at the end of the day? It was a very long, grueling day for this jury. Did any of it penetrate more than others? AKERMAN: Well, let me just say from the start with the defense's summation, I thought they did an effective job with what they had. I thought they stuck to what they said in their opening statement. They tried to argue, and this is the big issue, whether or not those payments of $35,000, the ten payments over 2017, were really for legal fees or were they a reimbursement payment for the monies that went to Stormy Daniels, which in turn led to the falsification of the bank records. And I thought they did what they had to do. They made the argument that it was for legal fees, but the problem was that when the prosecution got up, they were able to show basically from two documents, Exhibits 33 and 34, which they referred to as smoking guns, that basically took out that $420,000 that made up the ten times -- 12 times $35,000, and showed how the money that was paid to Stormy Daniels came out of that. And I thought that was extremely powerful in terms of breaking that down. PHILLIP: Let me just follow up on that, because one of the things that I don't think has been talked about enough, and maybe this was one of the strongest moments for the defense, but they suggested that this was all Michael Cohen's fault. That Michael Cohen was the guy who created the invoices, who sent them in to the Trump Organization. The accountants did what accountants do, which is just take the invoices, log it as they received it. [22:05:03] He was responsible. AKERMAN: Well, but see that's the whole point of those two exhibits. Because those two exhibits are in the handwriting of both McConney, who was the comptroller, and Weisselberg, who was the, you know, chief financial officer. And so they actually put that together. Cohen did testify that that was done with the approval of Donald Trump, but it's hard to believe Weisselberg did this on his own. PHILLIP: It's hard to believe. But is that enough for the jury? AKERMAN: Yes, I think, I think it is when you take all the other circumstances into account on this. COLLINS: Robert, you read both, the transcript of both arguments that -- ROBERT RAY, FORMER FEDERAL PROSECUTOR: I can't say both arguments. I got through the entirety of the defense summation and I started into the -- COLLINS: Well, it's like reading Moby Dick. It would have taken you a while to get through what happened this afternoon. RAY: The trial lasted five weeks, and I know it was only eight hours today. PHILLIP: One hour per week. RAY: But it seemed like it was an entire week worth of summations -- COLLINS: But, anyway, but as the prosecution was going today, they were, you know, making at one point an argument that Michael Cohen spent more time under cross-examination than he did in his hours of legal work for Donald Trump in 2018 or in 2017 when it came to how they were trying to restore his credibility. I know that you obviously don't see the prosecution's case here, but did you think that they made any strong arguments in their closing today in front of that jury? RAY: Well, let's start with the first premise of this, which is you asked whether it's been proven to the jury that Donald Trump falsified records. The answer to that is no. And that's not exactly what he's charged with, but he didn't falsify the records. And I think he got -- COLLINS: causing them to be falsified was an argument that the prosecution didn't take. RAY: So, that's the argument, and that's the question that you would expect the prosecutor's summation to revolve around. Did he cause this to happen? I think inevitably, though, contrary to what he says in the beginning of the transcript of his summation, this case inevitably is about Michael Cohen. I mean, obviously, it's about Donald Trump, who is the defendant on trial, but, you know, there are parts of this case, that being one of them, in terms of being able to find that Donald Trump caused those records to be false with intent, that you have to rely on Michael Cohen's testimony. It's unavoidable to be able to convict. And you could make a plausible argument, which the prosecution did in fairness to their argument that common sense will tell you plus the corroboration that is present in this case that they are able to find and convict beyond a reasonable doubt. Whether they will do so, though, is entirely up to them. And I don't think at this point it's safe to say one way or another where that's going to come out. PHILLIP: Let me ask you guys about one of the most explosive moments. The jury didn't see the explosive part, but they heard it. Here's what Todd Blanche said as he got to the very end of his closing arguments. Blanche says, you cannot send somebody to prison. You cannot convict somebody. Objection. The court says sustained. Blanche rephrases, you cannot convict someone based upon the words of Michael Cohen. I say it's explosive because it's a real double-edged sword. I'm curious whether you guys think it was intentional or maybe a slip of the tongue, but how this plays with the jury -- they heard the objection. They heard the word prison. They heard the objection. They heard the judge sustain it. It's being -- and then they were given instructions about it. So, it's been reinforced in their minds many times at this point. How is that going to go down? MERCEDES COLWIN, CRIMINAL DEFENSE ATTORNEY: So, Abby, as a practitioner, you never want your summations to be interrupted because the judge is upset with you because it definitely diminishes your argument. You never want to be the focus. You're all about putting in your narrative on behalf of your client. When the judge does say a sustained objection like that, you're exactly right and they get a curative instruction, then the jury is -- secondly, well, they understand that that practitioner did something wrong, because now the judge is not leaning into that objection, plus a curative instruction, because he shouldn't have talked about prison. That is strictly in the purview of the judge. AKERMAN: I buy that one though. PHILLIP: Okay, but if you're a juror right now, how are you not thinking this guy is trying to put pressure on us to keep his client out of jail? DONTE MILLS, NATIONAL TRIAL ATTORNEY, MILLS AND EDWARDS, LLP: Absolutely, and technically you're, you're right. These defense attorneys have a client to represent. And I think the best part of their closing argument was that line, because the jury has this weight of, we are deciding if a former president of the United States will become a felon. That's a heavy weight. And he just told them, do not put someone in jail -- RAY: I think there's a better way to say that. MILLS: But wait for a minute. He said, don't put someone in jail for that. It's not just anyone. It's a former president of the United States. And he understands we can nitpick this case, right, but common sense, Trump did this, right? Trump is -- common sense, it happened. What he's pleading with one person on that jury to do is say he's a former president and he shouldn't go down through this. [22:10:02] That's all he's asking for. RAY: And you're not going to put him in jail for this. Or the better way to say it is, and I have said this in summation, and it is intentional, it's not a slip, is to say, you know, this case is weak and you're talking about someone's liberty that's at stake. This is not a civil case. This is a criminal case. And the prosecution wants to take somebody's liberty away on the evidence based upon a reliance on Michael Cohen. That's absolutely appropriate. And I have to say -- COLWIN: But once you talk about sentencing, that's when you start to get the judge upset. And that's exactly what took place. It was not done articulately. That's all. RAY: Most of the cases that I've tried, pretty much it's obvious that prison is at stake. Now, my response of how Blanche had gotten the response that he got from the people on that was also, I guess, it means to suggest in the event of conviction, you're not going to be asking for a sentence of imprisonment because that was their position. Judge, this is unfair, because this is not a case that calls for a prison sentence. COLLINS: I would note that when they did return after the break, it was the, the people, the prosecution who typed up what the instruction they wanted read to the jury to be, Todd Blanche should not object. And he, the judge then read it to the jury once they got in the room. RAY: And I wouldn't have objected either. I mean, at that point, you know, it's going to happen with or without your objection. COLLINS: Overall, what they heard, because that was one moment and it was important moment, but it wasn't everything. But the way they handled the closing arguments was very different today. Todd Blanche was kind of throwing everything in the wall, mainly focusing on undermining Michael Cohen and eviscerating his credibility. The prosecution went much longer, obviously. That was the main difference. But he also tried to kind of tell a story and to put it in this chronological order. Which one typically sits better with a jury? AKERMAN: Well, I think what happened was the story was what unraveled what the defense put forward. I mean, they had some good arguments on the surface, but once you got into the nitty-gritty details, it was that long story of what happened that really unraveled the defense's arguments. And particularly one that I think is worth talking about is the Costello element in this that I think really has had a big impact on this case. They have shown by putting Costello on, I mean, they referred to him as a double agent. And the emails are just terrible. I mean, it sounds like he's trying to keep Cohen from cooperating and he's trying to basically not act as an attorney in the best interest of Cohen. PHILLIP: So, you're saying basically that Costello effectively became a prosecution witness? AKERMAN: Well, yes. And not only that, I think he basically -- whatever the, you know, defense did in terms of making some progress, I think Costello just pushed it all back. MILLS: It's better not put in the case than to put in a bag, right? AKERMAN: This is terrible from the standpoint. COLWIN: They probably listened to their client as opposed to because every practitioner that you've heard from said the same thing, don't call Costello. Don't put him on the stand. It is problematic. And sure enough, that's what exactly -- AKERMAN: I'm sure that was Trump that pushed that. MILLS: Kaitlan, just to go through the third questions, there were two different styles, but it's necessary. The prosecution has to walk through and make sure they check every single box. COLLINS: Yes, they have the burden of proof. MILLS: The defendant, yes, their job is just to say, one box is not checked, right? So, they don't have to go in order, they don't have to go through a whole story. All they have to do is point things out and hope that the jury latches onto one. PHILLIP: And that's actually not what they did. They didn't say one box is not checked. They said -- MILLS: Well, you never say one. You say all. AKERMAN: They take the whole story. PHILLIP: The boxes are not checked. And that's actually the critique that we've been hearing all day long, which is that sometimes less is more. And there was a lot that the defense put on the table that perhaps they didn't have to. Why did they dispute whether Donald Trump had an affair with Stormy Daniels? It's not even clear to me why they disputed the idea of whether the records were actual legal fees or not. They were trying to argue that Michael Cohen was acting as a bona fide lawyer for Donald Trump, which seemed not what they needed to do in order to poke reasonable doubt -- RAY: I don't think it's entirely about a scattershot approach, I think that's what most people have said in its defense does. Like, you know, you're defense, so you try anything that you think might work. Some arguments are better than others. I still think it gets down to attempting to show in a narrative that Donald Trump's motivations were not about in this regard doing what the prosecution is alleging that he did, which was that it was all about trying to influence voters in the 2016 election. You know, politics once again has sort of crept its way back into this trial, among many other things when it comes to Donald Trump. And I think that part of the defense strategy has been to humanize. Donald Trump, which they attempted to do an opening as a preview and to, and to put forward mixed motivations for why he would have acted the way he did, including among other things to protect his family. [22:15:01] And so disputing things about like what happened with regard to Stormy Daniels, I think a jury exercises a fair amount of common sense about that. And you would expect the defendant to do that. There's nothing criminal about that. And so you would expect Todd -- I want to say Blanche in summation to be making that argument. You know, that's just one of the arguments you'd be making. PHILLIP: Best interest of Donald Trump, the client. COLWIN: So, Donald Trump didn't take the stand, but what was so effective, what the prosecution did is it went and used admissions that he had written in his books, The Art of a Deal. He said in his The Art of a Deal, that he is a frugal micromanager. And by the incentive business owners, make sure you sign every check. You need to know the finances of your company. So, when they're introducing all those documents and they keep showing Donald Trump's signature after one, after another, after another, that's how they're trying to create the intent part by saying, this is a man by his own words, said that he is this micromanager, and he needs to know everything that takes place in his business. RAY: It's a little hard to do that though. COLWIN: Obviously, he knew the purpose behind these -- RAY: It's a little hard to do that though. When he, you know, I think as the defense effectively pointed out in summation, he's signing those checks and reviewing these things supposedly while he's in the Oval Office, while being president of the United States in the first year of his term. He's a pretty busy guy during that time. That may have been true during Art of the Deal days. It's a little different to be trying to make that the same argument once he's removed himself from the Trump Organization. COLLINS: Was he busy enough? Because there's also testimony that Michael Cohen was invited to the White House and they had a conversation about these checks. David Pecker was invited to the White House and Donald Trump walked alongside the colonnade and asked him about how Karen McDougal was doing. I mean, you're busy as the president of the United States, but Donald Trump is a micromanager. RAY: I don't really know the point of this, though. He signed the checks. The checks -- COLWIN: But there was testimony that came in, Bob, that said clearly that even his assistant said that he knew what was taking place because he wasn't signing up -- RAY: No, wait, wait, wait. Hold on. No, not knew what was taking place. He knows what's in front of him. The checks say retainer on it. That's not really proof of anything. MILLS: I don't think there's a solid argument that he didn't know what was happening. I think the defense made it clear with their summation style, don't do this to a former president. And if you need a reason, well, here's a globe, right? Here's a quote that you can tell people. Here's why I didn't find him guilty. They gave you excuses if you needed an excuse. But, ultimately, they said, not for this. Don't take down someone, a former president, Donald Trump, for this. I think that was the defense. I truly believe that was the defense. I do think they thought that they can convince the jury that Donald Trump didn't know what was happening with these payments, but they said, don't take them down for this. RAY: And I do think that prison moment -- I mean, I don't want to go back to it. MILLS: It was huge. RAY: But I think that was a big moment. I don't think it was accidental. I think it was intentional. It was not a slip. Again, you can sort of quibble over whether there's a better way to phrase it, but it is important for the jury to know, Judge Merchan notwithstanding, I don't think I agree with his reaction to that. It's important for a jury to know, not that they have any sentencing role, it's important for a jury to know the consequences of convicting somebody in a criminal case, period. COLWIN: But the jury does know that. PHILLIP: The jury does know that. RAY: But it's the job of a defense lawyer to hammer that home. PHILLIP: One of the interesting things about this case and about this jury is that you've got two lawyers on the jury. They understand that that's off limits. It will be interesting to see how they interpret the choice -- AKERMAN: Well, not those civil lawyers. That's not true. That's not true. COLWIN: They do know. PHILLIP: Maybe they don't know. But it will be interesting to see how they interpret that slip of the tongue or intentional message to them. Everyone, thank you very much for all of that conversation. Coming up next, former Trump insider Anthony Scaramucci, reacts to today's closing remarks and the Trump children who showed up today in court. Plus, speaking of surprise appearances, did the Biden campaign's decision to put Robert De Niro at court land or was it a flop? And we have more breaking news internationally, serious new questions tonight about Israel's deadly strike on a civilian camp, including why the U.S. says it does not cross President Biden's red line. (COMMERCIAL BREAK) [22:23:34] PHILLIP: My next guest says that there's no doubt that the former president is worried about the outcome of the trial, and you just have to look at the social media posts to see it. Through the holiday weekend and today, Donald Trump attacked the judge, the gag order, and the case itself on his platform, Truth Social. Anthony Scaramucci served briefly as the White House communications director during the Trump administration, and he's the author of the new book, From Wall Street to the White House and Back, Anthony Scaramucci joins me now. So, Anthony, look, we've heard the closing arguments from both sides, long day for the jury. What do you think? Is Trump closer, further away from an acquittal after today? ANTHONY SCARAMUCCI, FORMER TRUMP WHITE HOUSE COMMUNICATIONS DIRECTOR: Well, he's closer to a conviction, but it will really be up to the 12 people on the jury. But I just want to point out two quick things. Number one, Todd's closing argument had some inconsistencies in it. If he's calling Michael a liar, and, again, we're just talking about Michael's testimony now, not previous Michael, the documents and all the other prior testimony corroborate what Michael's saying. Additionally, the $420,000 in fees that they're talking about, it's either legal fees or Michael stole the money. It can't be both. And so I think it's very important to point out those nuances. It's also important to point out that that wasn't his best strategy to go after Michael Cohen. [22:25:00] But I guarantee you, Abby, that that was Donald Trump's strategy. I'm certain the same way Costello was brought to the stand because of Donald Trump, the strategy of going after Michael Cohen in those closing arguments was also a Donald Trump strategy. So, he's nerved up and he's offering guidance the way a NFL football owner would offer to a coach and most of the NFL football owners that do that end up blowing the game. PHILLIP: I mean, to that point, it was clear at certain points that Trump wanted his attorney to address the jury in the courtroom, but also really the court of public opinion. There were many times, I mean, I was there for those closing statements by the defense where you saw Blanche really disputing things that he probably shouldn't have, most notably that Trump had this affair, that there was sex involved with Stormy Daniels. I mean, what does that do to an attorney's credibility to have him deny something that, frankly, most of the available evidence out there suggests is actually true? SCARAMUCCI: Well, again, so that was a third point that you're bringing up, that, you know, you don't give $130,000. I think. Senator Romney said it better than I could ever say. You're not paying $130,000 to somebody that you didn't have sex with. But remember, Mr. Trump has two things going on at the same time. He wants to get exonerated from the case and he wants the lies that he's told his family and the lies that he's told his campaign and his followers to stick as well, and so he's trying to thread that into the case. So, for those reasons and other reasons, I think it's beyond a reasonable doubt in terms of the guilt. But, again, you know, we know so many people that have gotten off on cases like this and we'll have to see what the jury says. But that was three or four direct inconsistencies, Abby, and all of those were driven by Donald Trump. PHILLIP: So, today in the courtroom, where Eric Trump, Donald Trump Jr. and Tiffany Trump, but it's really about who we haven't been seeing there. We haven't seen Ivanka. We have not seen Melania Trump. What do we make of that? SCARAMUCCI: Well, in fairness to Ivanka, I think she has more or less stated from the beginning that she has had her stay in Washington, doesn't want to be involved with the campaign. I think as it relates to the former first lady, I think this is, prima facie, a very tough place for her to be given the facts of this case. And so it's understandable to me why she isn't there. And you're just proving my point further, the reasons why Mr. Trump wanted his attorney to say the things that he said in the court to make sure it got into the transcript. PHILLIP: So, you have a new book, From Wall Street to the White House and Back, and you talk about the lessons that you learned throughout your career, including in your very brief stay at the White House. What was the biggest lesson, the biggest takeaway of working for Donald Trump in the White House? But I should note for people who are not familiar with you went into the White House briefly, but you were by Trump's side for a long time before that. What did you learn from that experience? SCARAMUCCI: Well, listen, I worked on that campaign. I did 70 or so campaign stops with the candidate, now the former president. I also did hundreds of hours of media advocacy on behalf of the campaign. But, you know, the thing I learned and the central thing that I learned is that if you go with your ego and your pride in your decision-making, you can have devastating consequences to yourself. And there's a very close personal friend of mine. I won't name him, but he was interviewed for a series of jobs, and he wanted the job desperately, and he wanted to serve the country. But after meeting with Trump for five or six hours, he came to the conclusion that it wasn't the right fit for him in terms of their two personalities. And that was great self-awareness, great maturity, on that person's part. And while this doesn't reflect well on me, I do put it in the book. I made that decision based on pride, and I made that decision based on ego. And listen, it cost me. But I think the other lesson in the book is that you have to live your life without regrets. I don't wake up in the morning with a millstone of regret on my neck, thinking about what happened back then. I'm more interested in learning from it, sharing what I learned with other people, but I'm also more interested in getting on record what I saw. And what the president, the former president, is capable of, because I think it's a danger to the country. I think he represents a systemic threat to the country. And whether or not I can influence the election or not, it really doesn't matter, Abby, it's more important for me and for the reflection on my family that I get on record what I saw, what the danger is. And so people can make that choice come November, whatever they want to make it. But it's very important for me. And again, there's 40 of us that feel the same way, including the Vice President of the United States that was on the ballot with him two times. So, those are the lessons - [22:30:08] PHILLIP: Yeah, I'm -- you took the words --you took the words out of my mouth. SCARAMUUCI: Take your ego out of it. PHILLIP: You join a very long list of former Trump officials, people who have worked for him, who don't want to see him back in the White House, and that's incredibly notable. Anthony Scaramucci, always great to have you on the show. Thank you. SCARAMUCCI: Hey, good to be on. PHILLIP: And up next, the Biden campaign, taking a page out of the Trump playbook. We'll show you what happened and all the chaos that ensued when Biden campaign surrogates, including actor Robert De Niro, showed up. (COMMERCIAL BREAK) [22:35:03] PHILLIP: -- hour of Donald Trump's trial, President Biden's campaign shifts its strategy and turns to a g good fellow for help. Oscar- winning actor Robert De Niro appearing at a news conference outside of that Manhattan courthouse, where closing arguments were underway in the hush money trial of Donald Trump. Now, De Niro minced no words, slamming Trump as a clown and issuing this chilling warning. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) ROBERT DE NIRO, ACTOR AND BIDEN SUPPORTER: If Trump returns to the White House, you can kiss these freedoms goodbye that we all take for granted. And elections, forget about it. That's over. That's done. If he gets in, I can tell you right now, he will never leave. He will never leave. (END VIDEO CLIP) PHILLIP: For more, I want to bring in CNN Political Commentator S.E. Cupp. Also with us, former Democratic Congressman of New Jersey, Tom Malinowski. Okay, so I'm trying to wrap my head around this one. I'll start with you, Congressman. What do you think was the strategy here? Was it wise? Did they have to bring De Niro to get the attention they wanted? TOM MALINOWSKI (D-NJ) FORMER U.S. CONGRESSMAN: Look, I think Robert De Niro was probably atoning for all the mafia guys that he played in the movies by actually standing up for the rule of law today. And I was kind of happy to see that. But look, imagine if the shoe were on the other foot. It's 2020. And Trump is President, Biden is on trial. Like, can you imagine how many tweets per second we would be getting from the President of the United States? President Biden has been completely silent on this, which is the appropriate response. I don't think anyone's going to care or remember what Robert De Niro said in two weeks. We're going to care about some other things that happened at that rally, which I think are much more important, the way in which those police officers were attacked. I think that's what we should be talking about. PHILLIP: Can I just play a little bit of that? There was a big back and forth between the MAGA crowd. I mean, things got pretty heated. Let's play a little moment of that. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) UNKNOWN: Go. Leave New York State. DE NIRO: What are you telling me? UNKNOWN: Those two traitors behind you. DE NIRO: Excuse me? UNKNOWN: Those two traitors behind you. DE NIRO: They lied under oath? What are you saying? UNKNOWN: They're traitors. DE NIRO: They're traitors. You don't know -- don't even know how to deal with you, my friend. I don't even know how to deal with you. They stood there. They didn't have to. And there were other ones in there who probably were in with them a little bit, too, and they found a way to get around. Not these guys. They stood there and fought for us, for you. For you. UNKNOWN: They weren't fighting for me. DE NIRO: No. No, they fought for you, buddy. You're able to stand right here now. (END VIDEO CLIP) PHILLIP: Standing behind him, Michael Fanone, Harry Dunn, two Capitol Police officers. Heroes, really, on January 6th. And this is how they were received by the Trump crowd. S.E. CUPP, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: Well, this was a bad idea. This entire thing was not a great idea. I get wanting to take advantage of cameras at this spectacle, but this had the impromptu feeling that most Trump rallies have. Like, sort of all over the place. We don't know where it's going. We don't know who's showing up. It could be Kid Rock or a cabinet member. You never know. And that's what happened here. You had an actor who's obviously very angry at Trump, but I don't know why his opinion would matter more than someone else. And then you have these two heroes who almost gave their lives on January 6th at the insurrection. It was a mismatch and a mixed message. And now this actor is in a position to have to defend these police officers. I just didn't get it. And surrogates are best when they have an important story to tell. And like I said, Robert De Niro's angry at Donald Trump. He's not a victim of Donald Trump's, right? He's going to be fine. There are lots of victims of Donald Trump's. And if I were team Biden, I'd bring those people out to tell those stories. Harry Dunn and Michael Fanone and add the fallen family of Brian Sicknick to that group. Those are victims of Trump. E. Jean Carroll is a victim of Donald Trump. Shea Moss is a victim of Donald Trump, an election worker in Georgia who was accused of election fraud. Her life was ruined because of the lies Donald Trump told. Trump's own voters who have had to hand over their own money to help stop the steal and it's gone to offset his legal fees. There are millions of victims of Donald Trump. Robert De Niro isn't one. I would tell their stories. PHILLIP: A lot of Democrats I know have been wanting to see the Biden campaign play fire with fire. I mean, every day practically of this trial, Trump's surrogates have been outside saying really outlandish things in some cases about this trial. They're just there to take up some oxygen, to do what the candidate cannot do. But I mean, to S.E.'s point, is that -- that might feel good, you know, from a cathartic perspective, but is that really the right political strategy? [22:40:00] MAKOWSKI: Well, there's an argument that needs to be made. And let's get back to these police officers and the way in which they were treated. The whole argument that Trump is making and that he has brought most of the Republican Party along in making is that we need to discredit and denounce law enforcement in America, calling FBI agents dirty, filthy cops, promising to pardon the convicted felons who almost killed those police officers that day, almost killed me and my colleagues, campaigning on rally stages with rappers who have been prosecuted for murder. This is a guy who is embracing criminality. And that's something that I do think the Biden campaign does need to get out. I think they will. I think it's something that makes a lot of Republicans, moderate Republicans in my congressional district and across the country, very, very deeply uncomfortable. They do not recognize a party that, you know, that prefers Putin to the FBI. PHILLIP: Very quick last word, S.E. CUPP: Yeah, look, like I said, there are important stories to tell. Biden, I don't think, has been great at connecting the dots to real issues, real pain, and why Trump is such a threat. Robert De Niro is not, I don't think, is the mechanism to do that. I'd get some real folks. PHILLIP: All right, S.E. Cupp, Tom Malinowski, thank you both very much. An international fury is enveloping overnight over Israel's airstrike on a camp for displaced refugees in Gaza. Now, there's a CNN analysis that shows that the bomb that was used there was American made. That's next. (COMMERCIAL BREAK) [22:46:06] PHILLIP: Tonight, innocent people are dying, families and children caught in the middle of a war that was first started by Hamas terrorists. Now, for the next few moments, I'm going to take you through the searing images and ask a series of questions that will determine where this tragic story goes next. I want to start with this image. It's former Republican candidate Nikki Haley in Israel meeting with the survivors of the October 7th Hamas attack. But then she took out a marker and wrote, finish them. America loves Israel on the surface of an Israeli bomb. Now, that message comes after Israel's deadly strike on a tent camp and what the prime minister calls a tragic error. Now, since missiles are carrying messages, here are a few serious questions tonight to accompany each and every one of those bombs. First, how many tragic errors can occur without end? For months, hundreds of thousands of Palestinians have been on the move, forced from their homes by war if death didn't strike them first. On Sunday night, one of those areas, a tent camp near Rafah, desperation is high there. Food and water are scarce. Here's how CNN's Jeremy Diamond describes it. (BEGIN VIDEOTAPE) JEREMY DIAMOND, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Makeshift shelters housing displaced Palestinians engulfed in flames. The screams of women pierce the smoke-filled air as bodies are pulled from the blaze. (END VIDEOTAPE) PHILLIP: Now, at the time of the bombing, some families were said to have been asleep. Others were just getting ready for bed. (BEGIN VIDEOTAPE) DIAMOND (voice-over): Their blood-curdling screams tell the story of the unfolding horror more than words ever could. But it is only as bodies are pulled out of the inferno that the scale of this attack becomes clear. (END VIDEOTAPE) PHILLIP: When the strikes hit, some died on impact, some reportedly burned alive. Others right now are in unimaginable pain. They're alive, but barely. And that includes children. I have to warn you that the images that you're about to see are horrific, but they illustrate the brutal reality on the ground. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) (END VIDEO CLIP) PHILLIP: For those who never made it to the hospital, their families are left behind. (BEGIN VIDEOTAPE) DIAMOND (voice-over): And then there are the mourners. The occupation army is a liar. There is no security in Gaza, says this man, whose brother was killed in the strike. Here he is with his wife. They were martyred. They are gone. For one man, a brother. For another, his sister. She was the only one, he says. She was the only one, and she is gone. (END VIDEOTAPE) PHILLIP: At least 45 people reportedly died in that strike. And since October, while the numbers vary depending on the sources, some 35,000 have been killed in this war, which leads to the next question for these bombs. How many lost innocents are acceptable? Israel says two Hamas terrorists were killed in this strike. But at what cost? Children, as you just saw, are bearing the brunt of this war, either by mistake or by being human shields. And that leads to America's response. How many times will the U.S. repeat the same defense after these incidents? [22:50:03] This was the Biden administration today. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) JOHN KIRBY, WHITE HOUSE NATIONAL SECURITY COMMUNICATIONS ADVISER: There should be no innocent life lost here as a result of this conflict. Israel must take every precaution possible to do more to protect innocent life. (END VIDEO CLIP) PHILLIP: And this has been the administration since October. SABRINA SINGH, DEPUTY PENTAGON PRESS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE: It's absolutely devastating to see the loss of life. LLOYD AUSTIN, DEFENSE SECRETARY: Far too many civilians have been killed as a result of combat operations. PAT RYDER, BRIGADIER GENERAL, PENTAGON PRESS SECRETARY AIR FORCE: We will continue to consult with our Israeli partners and urge them to take all necessary measures to protect civilians. We regret any loss of life, and any loss of life is tragic. We've engaged with our Israeli partners, have continued to encourage them to do everything possible to mitigate civilian harm. No one wants to see innocent civilians killed in this conflict, whether they be Palestinian or Israelis. You know, again, we think it is tragic when any innocent civilian is killed, whether that's Palestinian, Israeli. We will continue to communicate with our Israeli partners on the importance of taking civilian safety into account in their operations. (END VIDEO CLIP) PHILLIP: But here's another question tonight. What exactly is President Biden's red line? (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) REPORTER: So, how does this not violate the red line that the President laid out? KIRBY: As I said, we don't want to see a major ground operation. We haven't seen that at this point. (END VIDEO CLIP) PHILLIP: But is that line ever changing? Is the line movable? Is the line more yellow than red? Is it blurry if the bombs continue to drop just as long as U.S. boots don't have to hit the ground? Is the line more dependent on whether there is a bigger story in the headlines? Now, that tense exchange in the briefing room continued. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) REPORTER: How many more charred corpses does he have to see before the President considers a change in policy? KIRBY: We don't want to see a single more innocent life taken. And I kind of take a little offense at the question. No civilian casualties is the right number of civilian casualties. And this is not something that we've turned a blind eye to, nor has it been something we've ignored or neglected to raise with our Israeli counterparts, including it this weekend as a result of this particular strike. Now, they're investigating it. So, let's let them investigate it and see what they come up with. (END VIDEO CLIP) PHILLIP: Which sparks the next dilemma. Israel is investigating itself in these instances. The government says the extent of the camp's destruction is not from their bombs, but possibly due to a stockpile of Palestinian weapons. But it's worth noting that this strike comes two days after the U.N.'s top court demanded that Israel immediately stop its operation in Rafah. It comes less than a week after the International Criminal Court said it's seeking arrest warrants for Israel's Netanyahu and Hamas leaders. And, of course, it comes after two months after Biden's red line. But what's notable above all is that today, just 48 hours after Israel's strike on that camp, the Palestinians say the Israelis have struck again. Twenty nine people killed in two separate attacks at displacement camps in Rafah. These new strikes killing civilians, as well, as Israel's self-investigates its previous strike that has also killed civilians. Now, another question for these bombs. That red line, it's even foggier since Netanyahu has warned over and over again that Israel will, in fact, defy the U.S. and hit Rafah. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) BENJAMIN NETANYAHU, ISRAELI PRIME MINISTER (through translator): We will enter Rafah because we have no other choice. We will complete the elimination of the Hamas battalions, including in Rafah. Rafah is the last stronghold of Hamas terrorist battalions. We'll defeat them. NETANYAHU: Yes, we do have a disagreement on Gaza and rather on Rafah. But we have to do what we have to do. And, you know, sometimes you have to, you just have to do what is required to ensure your survival in your future. NETANYAHU (through translator): The Hamas proposal yesterday was intended to torpedo the entry of our forces into Rafah. It did not happen. NETANYAHU: We will defeat Hamas, including in Rafah. NETANYAHU (through translator): I made it supremely clear to the U.S. President in our conversation that we are determined to complete the elimination of these Hamas battalions in Rafah, and there is no way to do it except by going in on the ground. (END VIDEO CLIP) PHILLIP: And speaking of the ground, the next question for these bombs is where do the civilians go? (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) ANSAR MAHDI, DISPLACED FROM RAFAH (through translator): The displacement is repugnant. When people move from one place to another, they want to live. They need money. They've lost their savings. [22:55:00] They told us to move from the north to the south. We did. We stayed in tents in abysmal conditions. No words can convey what we went through. Where else can we go? Where will the next displacement be? (END VIDEO CLIP) PHILLIP: And finally tonight, looking forward, how many of these attacks will further isolate Israel? No objective party is arguing that Israel can't or shouldn't defend itself from terrorists, nor save the hostages who are still in those evil hands. But we just saw the graphic photo of IDF soldiers who were captured by Hamas that were released by their families to put pressure on Netanyahu. Are any of them closer to being brought home today? So, every question tonight is challenging, and both Israel and Palestinian innocent lives hang in the balance based on the answers. And that includes the legitimate question of whether Israel's tragic errors end, and how long American support through those mistakes will last. It's a new question now for President Biden, who has yet to publicly comment on any of this, especially since a CNN analysis shows that the munitions used in this camp strike were American made. We'll be back in a moment. (COMMERCIAL BREAK) Laura Coates Live Aired May 28, 2024 - 23:00 ET THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED. (COMMERCIAL BREAK) [23:00:58] LAURA COATES, CNN HOST: Donald Trump's criminal trial goes into overtime and the ball is about to be in the jury's court, tonight on a special edition of "Laura Coates Live." Twelve New York jurors are just a few hours now away from finally deliberating what they have spent weeks listening to, one of the highest profile cases in all of American history. And tomorrow morning, around 10:00 Eastern, they're going to get specific instructions to follow from the judge before they're then sent off to really talk amongst themselves. And we all wish, I do, we could be a fly on the wall, but we will have to wait for the smoke signal to know just what they decide. And on day 21, yes day 21 of Trump's trial, the jurors today got some final words to consider. Actually, they got a lot of words to consider. Do you realize that closing arguments lasted more than seven hours? About three for the defense, who went first, and then nearly five hours for the prosecution. It didn't even end until about 8:00 tonight. Now, one thing the jurors will have to grapple with rounds, well, a person you're going to guess correctly when I say his name, Michael Cohen. How important is he in trying to decide whether Trump is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt? Well, according to the defense, they argue his credibility is so damaged that none of what he said should ever be considered in the jurors' decision. Todd Blanche saying, "Michael Cohen. He's the human embodiment of reasonable doubt. Literally." Blanche went on, "Michael Cohen is the gloat. He's literally the greatest liar of all time." Not much of, yeah, a glow there. Blanche says, "You cannot -- you cannot send somebody to prison, you cannot convict somebody." Well, objection, the court sustained. Mr. Blanche saying, "You cannot convict somebody based upon the words of Michael Cohen." Now, there was an objection and it was the right one to make because referencing prison was a huge deal. I'll explain why in just a moment. But the defense countered the prosecution's attack on Cohen head-on with this: Steinglass, the person who was the prosecutor in this case, said, "Michael Cohen's significance in this case that he provides context and color to the documents, the phone records, the texts, the recordings. He's like a tour guide through the physical evidence. But, those documents don't lie. And they don't forget." He went on to say, "Those documents tell you everything you need to know. You don't need Michael Cohen to connect these dots. But, as the ultimate insider, he can help you to do just that." Joining us now, former attorney for Michael Cohen, Lanny Davis. Lanny, good to see you this evening. I know that you and I have had several conversations over the course of this trial. We both expected that Michael Cohen would be a significant part of the trial and a significant part of the summations, and today did not disappoint. I do wonder what you made of the way the prosecution and the defense, over about eight hours-worth of time, laid out their case talking about Michael Cohen. What do you make of it? LANNY DAVIS, FORMER ATTORNEY FOR MICHAEL COHEN: Well, first of all, I think both sides had great legal representation. I do think there's a difference in the way the jury heard the presentation between labeling and character attacks, making the case as if Michael Cohen is the indicted accused person, versus looking at hard evidence and documents that can't lie, that establish the guilt on the two charges. And those two are very difficult choices for a jury to make because they will be influenced by character and labeling versus evidence that is in front of them. [23:05:00] But let me at least try to simplify my view of this, Laura, by just two -- COATES: Uh-hmm. DAVIS: -- basic questions the jury has to face that are factual questions, and I'll trust their decision because I believe in the jury system, whether they acquit or convict or whether they're split. Question number one, I think, is powerful in favor of the prosecution. Did Donald Trump have political motivation to buy the hush money method to keep Stormy Daniels's affair quiet? Was it politically motivated? Now, if the answer is yes, you may not like the statute that calls that a crime, but it's a crime. And I can tell you it's a crime because Michael Cohen went to prison with federal prosecutors who worked for Donald Trump, calling it not only a crime to give money to keep somebody quiet with bad information that one candidate may not want voters to hear. Actually, Trump's prosecutors call that crime an impairment and endanger to our democracy. COATES: I hear you, Lanny, but what's number two? I want to hear the number two. DAVIS: Well, number two is, did Donald Trump lie when he called the $35,000 a month checks to Michael Cohen? Legal fees. If the jury believes that he lied, then that's the motivation for the false booking, which federal prosecutors working for Donald Trump said there was a false booking that called them legal fees. But was Donald Trump lying when he called them legal fees? And so, my question that I think the jury will have to answer is when Michael's statement is weighed against Allen Weisselberg's notes. It's Allen Weisselberg's notes that speak louder than Michael Cohen's version. His notes say $130,000 is part of the equation that led to $35,000 a month checks by Donald Trump. COATES: And Lanny, I want to -- DAVIS: Now, $130,000 cannot be legal. COATES: Hold on. Lanny, we're not going to over talk each other. DAVIS: Sorry. COATES: I do want to have a conversation -- DAVIS: Sorry. COATES: -- and so I'm going to interject. Thank you. DAVIS: Sorry. COATES: So, when you're talking about Allen Weisselberg's notes, and this is important part, the actual, the audience is seeing that on the screen right now, I know you had raised these two points. The crux of the issue, of course, are 34 counts of falsified business records. They have to indeed prove what you just talked about in terms of falsified records. But that Weisselberg document, laying out the $420,000 reimbursement, $35,000 a month, the defense tried to suggest that this was not as damning as you suggest because Michael Cohen padded part of the expenses. He lied about what was owed to him from the polling company, or that he submitted falsified documents, or perhaps even more importantly, that Allen Weisselberg's absence is a huge seed of reasonable doubt. How should the jury have seen that? DAVIS: Okay, let's just be simple. I'm sorry I went on too long, Laura. My apologies. COATES: It's okay. DAVIS: A $130,000 is written on that document, multiplied by two, to make Michael whole for income taxes. A $130,000, the jury has already concluded, in my opinion, was to pay Stormy Daniels to be quiet. It was not about legal fees. So, has the defense explained the $130,000 number on the Weisselberg notes? As to him being absent, everybody on that jury knows how close Weisselberg and Mr. Trump were. The defense does not deny that. Mr. Weisselberg chose not to testify. He is in prison for perjury because he is so close to Mr. Trump. That will be the jury's fair inference and that's up to the jury to decide, and I'll respect that. But the $130,000, I would repeat to you, Laura, nobody can say that $130,000 was for legal fees unless the defense can say that and persuade the jury that $130,000 paid to Stormy Daniels to keep her quiet was for legal fees. That's evidence beyond a reasonable doubt, in my opinion, of Donald Trump's guilt. COATES: Lanny Davis, I don't suppose you've had a chance to speak with Michael Cohen at all about how he views the way he was characterized in this trial. DAVIS: Very, very briefly -- no, I haven't. I've deliberately left Michael alone. It has been a very difficult time for him to hear the word liar, liar, liar, liar, when it's as if he's the one that is on trial. I believe that the prosecution had it exactly right when the defense tried to turn this into a trial about Michael Cohen, whereas the fact is -- the fact is, and it's an irrefutable fact, that Michael Cohen is reading a book as a narrator, confirming documents that speak for themselves. You cannot say someone is a liar when they're reading a book, confirming a narrative. That's what the prosecution said today, and I think they're right. COATES: Lanny Davis, thank you so much for joining. DAVIS: Thanks, Laura. COATES: I look forward to speaking with you again. Thank you so much. DAVIS: Thanks for having me. COATES: Well, joining me now, former federal prosecutor Alyse Adamson, CNN legal commentator and former Trump attorney, Tim Parlatore, CNN legal analyst Karen Friedman Agnifilo. Karen is counsel for a firm that represents Michael Cohen, but she does not have any contact with him specifically. She does not work on his case. [23:10:00] Also, former federal prosecutor Gene Rossi is here, and law enforcement reporter for "The Washington Post," Devlin Barrett, who was in court today. I'll begin with you, Devlin, because to Lanny's point, one, he talked about political motivation as being the most important aspect of this case which, of course, speaks to what was the incentive behind paying off Stormy Daniels. The other part was that Michael Cohen was, in the words of the prosecution, a deflection. Focusing on him was trying to deflect away from the attention of what the underlying crimes were. I want to know how this was reading in the courtroom. We weren't able to watch the presentation by either counsel. Was it theatrical? Were they subdued? Tell me about their mannerisms in delivering their closings. DEVLIN BARRETT, LAW ENFORCEMENT REPORTER, THE WASHINGTON POST: Yeah, I wouldn't say any of it was subdued. I think Todd Blanche the defense lawyer, got a little more heated and a little more emotional at times, calling Michael Cohen a liar, a perjurer, and essentially saying, you know, he's the one thing -- he's quicksand to a case. You cannot build anything on him. The prosecutor was a little different. He was also emotional at times, but he was more biting and controlled in how he delivered his lines. There were a couple moments where he made specific points about Cohen, where I noticed one of the jurors was nodding along in agreement, and I thought that was interesting, that he seemed to have at least the agreement and endorsement a little bit of one juror. But overall, look, we're -- we're -- in some ways, we're in the same exact place we started with, right? If you believe the papers, you're probably leaning toward conviction. If you have serious concerns about Michael Cohen, you are probably not leaning toward conviction. That was the argument that was laid out by both sides. COATES: Yeah. BARRETT: They're both just coming at the same facts from completely different ends. COATES: A really important point. I want to bring in my panel into the room as well, because when you talk about the way the defense began, of course, in New York, it's very different than what happens in television. We're talking about this this morning. The defense goes first for the closing argument, then the prosecution has the last word. If it were federal court, it would be the prosecution having the first bite, then the defense, and then a rebuttal. Trump was angry about this, knowing that he was going to not have the final word here. But the defense wanted to talk about that quicksand argument, that this entire case rises and falls with Michael Cohen. And if that's the case, that the prosecution has not met their burden. Were they effective? TIM PARLATORE, FORMER TRUMP ATTORNEY: You know, I think that they were effective in that. Yeah, I think that there was a lot of extra stuff that they could have, you know, left out. But, you know, in making the point that Michael Cohen is the linchpin for this and really focusing in on the meeting, you know, the alleged meeting between Trump, Weisselberg, and Cohen, that's the one piece of this case that is a necessary element that there is no documentation for. And, you know, they've corroborated -- COATES: Well, they have -- they're going to tell you they have the notes. That's not enough. PARLATORE: Sure. Well -- and the notes -- the notes absolutely corroborate a meeting between Allen Weisselberg and Michael Cohen. COATES: Uh-hmm. PARLATORE: But they don't corroborate whether Trump was there, whether Trump was informed, whether Trump agreed. And the only way that you put Donald Trump in the room is Michael Cohen's word. Otherwise, you definitely have an agreement between Michael Cohen and Allen Weisselberg. COATES: What we just -- PARLATORE: But neither of them is defendant. COATES: Sorry about that. What we just saw on the screen was notes from Mr. McConney, who is on the right. These are notes that he took referencing his conversation with Allen Weisselberg. They both add up -- although it is chicken scratch, Karen, they both add up to $420,000, the amount of money to repay. We know from the testimony that part of this was a padded amount for Michael Cohen from that polling entity to try to buttress the credibility of Trump. But when you look at the fact that, connecting the dots, there has been a lot of information about Michael Cohen, about Allen Weisselberg, was there enough from the defense's perspective to connect Donald Trump? KAREN FRIEDMAN AGNIFILO, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: Look, I think it's very -- there's definitely argument to be made on the defense side that there are weaknesses in the case, right? That the only thing placing Donald Trump in the room is Michael Cohen and how can you trust his word. That there's -- yes, there are phone calls between Cohen and Trump, and yes, there are other things, meetings between them, but to know the content or the substance of it, you have to rely on Michael Cohen. And I think the problem I had with the defense summation was you didn't get to that until the very end, that he spent so much time on things that I thought were irrelevant like whether or not -- whether or not Trump had an affair with Stormy Daniels. What does that have to do with anything? You know, there was a payoff, right? There was a hush money payoff. Whether or not -- COATES: You mean because they don't actually have to prove whether that was true, just that there was incentive to pay her? FRIEDMAN AGNIFILO: Exactly. And so, I thought that was just strange because I don't think anyone on the planet believes that they did -- that Donald Trump is paying $130,000, grossed up times three, because there's a photo of Donald Trump on a golf course standing next to Stormy Daniels. [23:15:04] So, I think the whole world believes. You know, so why are you even making that argument when you don't need to? And I thought the defense summation spent a lot of time on things like that, that they really did not need to argue about. Another thing they said was there's no crime. Well, there's definitely a crime. But if I were the defense attorney, I'd say, but Michael Cohen committed it, maybe even Allen Weisselberg committed it. Donald Trump had nothing to do with it, right? So, they were just -- I just kind of thought, I don't really understand why they're going -- doing the strategy they did. At the end, I thought they did well and argued what they needed to argue about Cohen. And there's a lot you can argue about Cohen. But they didn't get to that until the very end. COATES: Well, what they did get to at the end was to say that you cannot send him to prison, you cannot connect on Michael Cohen's word. That got an objection. It should have -- "You cannot send somebody to prison. You cannot connect somebody based upon the words of Michael Cohen." Now, Alyse, Todd Blanche is a former prosecutor. He knows full well the inappropriateness of that comment because it's not the job of the jurors to decide a sentence. What did you make of that moment? ALYSE ADAMSON, FORMER FEDERAL PROSECUTOR: Yeah, that was highly improper. And having that objection sustained was obviously correct by Judge Merchan. Pattern jury instructions have wording to the effect of what you just said, which it is not for the jury to consider punishment, that is for the court. Todd Blanche knows that. This was not a slip of the tongue. He knew what he was doing. Yes, Judge Merchan gave a curative instruction to the jury, but it's like a tube of toothpaste. Once it has been, it's out of the tube, you can't put it back in. And the jury heard it. And yes, he was a former federal prosecutor, and he knows that. So, he knew what effect it would have on the jury. And now, they're going to think, oh geez, well, I might have been convinced, but he could go to prison for this. And maybe they don't even realize how influenced they have become, but it's definitely a possibility. So, you know, he knew what he was doing and it's unfortunate for the prosecution, really. COATES: You've been on both sides of the courtroom. GENE ROSSI, FORMER FEDERAL PROSECUTOR: Uh-hmm. COATES: Would you -- was it improper for this defense counsel to do it in this way? Number one. And two, what do you think his motivation was? Was it trying to suggest, as Elise is articulating here, that it was about the fear of a juror feeling nervous or was it a politics as well? ROSSI: I think it was politics, and I think Donald Trump may have been a little bit behind this. Was it improper? Absolutely. And I'm not -- I wouldn't be surprised if the judge makes a referral to Bar Council. COATES: Really? ROSSI: If I had done that in the Eastern District of Virginia, I would have been cuffed. And every attorney knows this. But here's the mistake that Todd Blanche made. He's thinking the jury is going to be affected by this. I disagree with anybody who says they'll be affected, with all due respect. There are two attorneys on that jury. And those two attorneys probably haven't done criminal, maybe, but they know that you cannot mention that a person will go to prison if you find them guilty. So, just like calling Costello as the last witness, they overplayed their hand. And I think they offended the two attorneys, maybe more, that are on that jury. But is it improper to do what he did? Yes. COATES: Maybe on the one hand, if it had been referencing a cooperating witness about what they are testifying to and why they were not going to have a penalty, but imagine a death penalty case, and instead of the jurors thinking about the burden of proof, they're now thinking about what decision they will make that might have an impact on the other person's life. This is part of the reason people are objecting and rightfully so. Stand by, we're going to come right back. Next, a marathon -- like I'm blinking -- a marathon of nearly five hours for the prosecution's closing arguments. And they put a lot of focus on a key witness. And it wasn't Michael Cohen. It was Hope Hicks. Why they hope her testimony was the nail in the coffin. Plus, Robert De Niro's appearance on the mean streets outside of the Manhattan courthouse. And yes, they were talking to him. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) ROBERT DE NIRO, ACTOR, FILM PRODUCER: Donald Trump wants to destroy not only the city, but the country. And eventually, he could destroy the world. (END VIDEO CLIP) (COMMERCIAL BREAK) [23:23:11] COATES: The prosecution wrapping up their closing arguments in the hush money trial after nearly five hours. Prosecutor Joshua Steinglass calling the testimony of Hope Hicks, Trump's longtime trusted aide, devastating. Remember that Hicks told the court that Trump said this about Stormy Daniels and the story that it -- quote -- "would have been bad to have that story come out before the election." Steinglass saying Hicks -- quote -- "basically burst into tears because she realized how much this testimony put the nail in Mr. Trump's coffin." My panel is back with me. Karen, you and I are both in the courtroom that day when she started crying. I think we see things differently, though. I saw her as being generally overwhelmed by the entire process and much -- people were very surprised that she began crying. It sorts of floated out to that final statement that she made. It almost seemed to be lost on her or the jury. You said something different, though, that that really was a nail in the coffin. Why? FRIEDMAN AGNIFILO: Yeah, I -- look, for me, I try to experience things the way the jury would experience them. And so, I heard Hope Hicks talking about -- she was on the one hand saying things favorable for Donald Trump, that he loves his wife, he loves his family, he -- you know -- COATES: Worried about Melania. FRIEDMAN AGNIFILO: Yeah, exactly. But on the other hand, I think she overall was honest, and she was -- had to say what the truth was. And it just, the way it felt to me, was exactly how Josh Steinglass described it, which is she just undeniably said -- of course he -- this was about the election. And he said to her he was glad that this -- that this didn't come out before the election. And that's when she started crying. [23:25:00] And prosecution sat down. And the defense attorney got up there and asked some question, like, you know, what's your job description, or some innocuous question. And she burst into tears. And to me, it just felt like, wow, she just realized she just gave -- put the nail in the coffin for Donald Trump. It was really powerful. That's how it felt to me -- COATES: Uh-hmm. FRIEDMAN AGNIFILO: -- as -- as someone who doesn't know -- believe it or not, I don't follow as much as it seems like I must. I don't really know Hope Hicks or who she was or -- COATES: Uh-hmm. FRIEDMAN AGNIFILO: It was just clear that she knew and was close to Trump, and that she was trying to be honest. But at the same time, she couldn't deny that this was the truth. COATES: And again, I -- I saw her as generally overwhelmed by this whole process, seemed to be -- her voice trembling throughout the entirety of the -- of the conversation, ducking around the former president. And yet the strategy would have been, had I been the prosecutor, if I believed that it happened, would have done precisely that. I would have sat down and not kept going because I knew that that would have been the moment I wanted to linger. But the prosecution, they didn't sit down after like an hour or two or three -- (LAUGHTER) -- or four or five hours today. Five hours, Tim, to summarize all that came in today. I wonder how that plays to a jury. Does that make it look like, you know, you're trying so hard to explain that you're losing your persuasive credibility? PARLATORE: I think so. I mean, I -- I love a prosecutor that's long- winded and wants to go on that long -- (LAUGHTER) -- because it -- I think it always helps me as the defense. And it's something that I even preview. I say, hey, look, they're going to go on for a very long time about this stuff. And the more time they spend on all of this other stuff and not talking about the main issue, the more you know that they have a problem here. And I think that when you do go on for a certain level of time, it sounds to me like the jury was paying attention because of the gravity of the case. But I've heard from some people in the courtroom that said the longer Steinglass went on, the more the chances for acquittal went up. So, I -- it is something where you have to be concise and you have to be respectful of the jury's time. And the longer you go, you water down the arguments because, ultimately, whether you're going to convince the jury at closings, that's one strategy. But the other thing is you're arming them with the arguments that they need -- ROSSI: Right. PARLATORE: -- when they go back to deliberation. And when they want to convince the other jurors to come over to their side and if you're giving them just so much stuff -- I mean, so many attorneys, they feel a compulsion to cover every single document, every single little piece, because they're afraid that they're going to sit down, like, oh, I forgot to talk about that tiny little piece. But it's not always helpful. COATES: Well, in that spirit, Gene, when you look at this, I mean, especially, they need to rehabilitate Michael Cohen. ROSSI: Yes. COATES: There have been a lot of attacks on him and his credibility throughout the course of it. And they also had to follow in line what they had to prove. This is a falsified business records case. It's not a sex case. It's not a case about Michael Cohen actually being the defendant. They had to try to prove that there was a valuable contribution given. And to that end, Josh Steinglass made the case that the catch-and-kill scheme could very well be what got Trump elected. And here's what he said: "It turned out to be one of the most valuable contributions anyone ever made to the Trump campaign." Does that land to the jury, knowing they have to prove what they have to for falsified business records? ROSSI: Absolutely. He is elevating this case from just a hush money case to how it affected greatly, possibly, one of the most important elections we've ever had. And I want to compliment the prosecutor on this. He did -- he did a couple things that I thought were very important. One, he went through the documents, and he went through the timeline, because that timeline from October 24th to October 28th, the text messages, communications, that is the heart and soul of this case. And he went through that very thoroughly. The second thing I would like to compliment him on is he reenacted. Some people thought it was a gimmick. I liked it. He reenacted a 96- minute -- COATES: Second. ROSSI: Second. That would be a long one. (LAUGHTER) That would be a long one. COATES: And they still would have gone three and a half hours. It went longer, though. I think 96 minutes. ROSSI: It's getting late. But the 96 seconds, not minutes. But he reenacted that moment. And I thought that showed the jury, one, it humanized him. He actually had the phone towards his ear, and he was showing the jury that you can talk about a lot of stuff in 96 seconds, not minutes. And the last thing he did was, he focused on Costello. And I think the biggest mistake that the defense made is they called Costello as essentially their only and last witness. [23:30:00] And I thought he corroborated Michael Cohen because they were sort of doing a catch-and-kill with Michael Cohen and trying to -- trying to browbeat him. COATES: Well, you know, there's this -- the bigger picture here is whether they proved their case, even in light of all the nuances, the minutiae of everything. At the end of the day, 34 counts of falsified business records. And to quote the prosecutor, "We didn't choose Michael Cohen to be our witness. We didn't pick him up at the witness store." The defendant chose Michael Cohen as his fixer because he's willing to lie and cheat on his behalf. Will that resonate? Only the jury will know. Thank you so much, everyone. Up next, Robert De Niro attacking Trump outside the Manhattan courthouse after going there at the request of the Biden campaign. But will his chaotic experience and appearance hurt more than it helps? (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) DE NIRO: Take that stupid (bleep) hat off. Take that stupid (bleep) hat off. You're a bunch of clowns. (END VIDEO CLIP) (COMMERCIAL BREAK) [23:35:19] COATES: For weeks now, President Biden has barely had anything to say about Donald Trump facing criminal charges. His campaign taking his lead and staying quiet for the most part. But today, that all changed. The Biden campaign holding a press conference right outside the courthouse featuring Robert De Niro. And he wasn't alone. He was flanked by two police officers who helped defend the Capitol on January 6th, Harry Dunn and Michael Fanone. Check this out. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) DE NIRO: I love this city. I don't want to destroy it. Donald Trump wants to destroy not only the city, but the country. And eventually, he could destroy the world. That's the tyrant he's telling us he'll be. And believe me, he means it. (END VIDEO CLIP) COATES: Well, how was De Niro received? Well, things got ugly as he clashed with Trump supporters when he was leaving, and a classic New York dustup full of curses and insults. Trump's son making sure to give his opinion as well. Here's Don Jr. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) DONALD JOHN TRUMP JR., ELDEST CHILD OF DONALD TRUMP: This is a political persecution. That was evidenced today, today by the Biden campaign themselves holding a rally here. They bring in Robert De Niro. (END VIDEO CLIP) COATES: But you also had Republicans having rallies outside the courthouse as well. And De Niro, last I checked, is actually not an elected official. So, who's right and who's wrong in the conversations and the vantage point they bring? And more importantly, will either message win over voters or will it backfire? With me now, Leigh Ann Caldwell, anchor for "Washington Post Live" and co-author for "Washington Post" early 202 newsletter, Shermichael Singleton, a senior political commentator, Mike Dubke, a former Trump White House communications director, and Alencia Johnson, a former senior advisor to the Biden 2020 campaign. All right, Alencia, you heard my take and both have done political rallies outside. One involves speaker of the House. One involves Robert De Niro. Not equal. ALENCIA JOHNSON, FORMER SENIOR ADVISER FOR THE BIDEN 2020 CAMPAIGN: Not quite equal. But I think the reality here is having Robert De Niro there actually gets under Donald Trump's skin, right? Because he used to be this big guy in Hollywood. He's supposed to be the king of New York. And Robert De Niro is a big guy in Hollywood, a mainstay of New York, And he's going directly after Donald Trump. And this was actually a really good move, I believe, on the Biden campaign's part because Democrats want to see a fight, and they want to see it coming from the Democratic side. And we don't want to have politicians involved in this and, you know, do the same thing that the Trump candidacy is doing and intimidating voters. But having Robert De Niro and surrogates out there making the case, that was a strong move from the Biden campaign. I applaud it. COATES: What do you think, Mike? MIKE DUBKE, FORMER TRUMP WHITE HOUSE COMMUNICATIONS DIRECTOR: Oh, I'll take the opposite view on this. I think it was an unforced error by the -- by the Biden campaign, frankly. They took Robert De Niro and turned him into sideshow Bob out there with all of the New York's finest that have been gathering every day of this campaign. At some point, and you saw it with Donald Jr.'s talking of political persecution, the Trump message is going to be whether there's an acquittal, a hung jury, or there's a convention that this was nothing but politics. The Biden campaign kept out of it for 20 days of the 21 days this trial has been going on. And at the last second, they come in, I view that as weakness, that they are, at some point, trying to figure out how they can turn their ship around. And so, they threw Robert De Niro out in the street. SHERMICHAEL SINGLETON, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: I think that's a good point. I mean, why get involved at the last minute when you didn't use your campaign to say anything up until this point? COATES: You mean pre-verdict? SINGLETON: With that point in mind, though, strategically, if I'm going to send someone to New York to comment on this from the political perspective, I'm looking at the data and figuring out who are the best representatives to reach the groups that I'm struggling with the most. Someone who's younger, maybe someone of color to sort of articulate that message of character. If I were a Democrat, not an 80, 81-year-old white guy. I think Biden is okay with that group. He probably should have more surrogates out that sort of represent the groups that he's struggling with most. LEIGH ANN CALDWELL, ANCHOR, WASHINGTON POST LIVE: Well, you said weakness, but it is also desperation. President Biden has been behind in almost every single poll that there has been this cycle. The Trump campaign and Trump surrogates are saying this is proof that this is weaponization of the Justice Department. The Trump campaign has been saying that for months and months anyway, something that the Biden campaign was fearful of playing into. [23:40:01] So, why not hit back is their response now, maybe a little too little, maybe too late. But the fact that it's not going to change the argument at all from the Trump campaign, so why not play at the same level? JOHNSON: I don't disagree on this as being desperation. I actually think this is listening to a base that is a lot wider than older white men. It has actually listened to a lot of people who want to support President Biden openly, who want to see folks fight back. And Robert De Niro -- SINGLETON: Older, white guy? JOHNSON: Robert De Niro speaks to a lot of folks. Listen, he's a favorite of a lot of people. SINGLETON: He speaks to you? COATES: I wish he spoke to me. I like Robert De Niro. He's got the Rolling Stone. I forget the politics. I want to talk to De Niro. But hey, there's another Hollywood star who -- DUBKE: The timing -- COATES: The timing of it, we can also talk about. We're a day or so away maybe from a verdict. I wonder why they didn't come out later. But there's another Hollywood star who is throwing support behind Donald Trump. Listen. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) PIERS MORGAN, BROADCASTER: What do you think of Trump? DENNIS QUAID, ACTOR: I think I'm going to vote for him. MORGAN: Really? QUAID: Yeah, in the next election. Yes, I am. MORGAN: Are you ready for the blowback? QUAID: Well -- (LAUGHTER) -- yeah -- MORGAN: It inevitably comes with Trump. QUAID: Well, you know, I think this election, everybody has got -- I think you're going to take a side of whatever, but it just seems to -- he just makes sense. I was ready not to vote for Trump until I -- what I saw is more than politics. I see a weaponization of our justice system. MORGAN: Yeah. QUAID: And a challenge to our Constitution. People might call him an (bleep), but he's my (bleep). (END VIDEO CLIP) COATES: That's a t-shirt. And by the way, I think he's getting ready to play Reagan in an upcoming film. So, that -- did Reagan say that? I don't know. Go ahead. What's your thought about that comment? DUBKE: I -- when Morgan goes, are you ready for the blowback? I mean, I think that tells you everything. Hollywood is afraid to say what they think. And every once in a while, somebody comes out and says, you know, he's a -- but he's mine. I think that speaks to where a lot of Americans are at the moment. COATES: What is that telling you, though? I want to be clear. What is that saying? I want to understand more about -- is it that personality be damned? I like his policies. What is it? DUBKE: No. I think it's a pox on both the houses, that this -- that the government is broken and it's better to take somebody that's going to throw some punches in there to fix it. I think it is what Mr. Quaid is saying. SINGLETON: These celebrities will not move the needle one way or the other. There's substantial political data from several decades on this fact. If you want to talk to the American people, I'm with Alencia, have surrogates out there, but try to get people who are more relatable to the average person's plight and struggle. That's how you get people on your team, not these rich millionaire celebrities. COATES: Is part of the point, though, that they are voicing the frustration? If, in the way that the prosecution today laid out Michael Cohen as the narrator of a story, the fact that it's somebody narrating a grievance, isn't that what's behind the conversation? SINGLETON: I mean, I suppose, Laura, but again, I don't think this trial is going to matter to the average voter. COATES: You know I said the trial. That's what I'm talking about. CALDWELL: That is the entire -- that's Trump's campaign synthesized in one statement right there, is grievance. Grievance, politics, the victim, and that's why we've seen -- "New York Times" had a great story today about how Trump is now surrounding himself and trying to play the criminal. He's kind of playing the part now. And this is something that has proven effective because people feel like he is the victim, and they want to -- they see themselves in it as also victims. But it's also interesting. Trump also used to surround himself with victims -- with criminals. Anyway, they just hadn't been charged yet. Michael Flynn, Michael Cohen, etcetera and etcetera. And now, he's now surrounding himself with people who have been accused. COATES: I just wonder about the narrative that suggests that Robert De Niro's presence next to two officers from the January 6th Capitol events, that that justifies -- that says and confirms political viewpoints or politicization of the Justice Department. None of them are a part of it at all any longer. So, I failed to understand that connection, but there's always tomorrow. Thank you so much, everyone. Ahead, sweeping new lawsuits filed by families of Uvalde victims. They accuse Instagram, a gun maker, and a popular video game publisher of grooming the shooter. The lawyer representing the families is my guest, and I'll explain the lawsuit next. (COMMERCIAL BREAK) [23:49:08] COATES: Tonight, a new lawsuit targets what lawyers call an unholy trinity that they say led to the massacre in Uvalde, Texas. Last week marked two years since 19 students and two teachers were killed at Robb Elementary School. Now, their families and survivors are suing three companies over the mass shooting. And these suits are significant because they don't just target the gun maker, Daniel Defense, but they also go after video game company Activision and social media giant Meta, the owner of Instagram. They argue Activision's game, "Call of Duty, Modern Warfare," featured a rifle sold by gunmaker, Daniel Defense, and Instagram aggressively marketed the gun to Uvalde shooter, Salvador Ramos. [23:50:00] The suit claims the companies -- quote -- "groomed a generation of young men socially vulnerable, insecure about their masculinity, and eager to show strength." In the statement, Activision says -- quote -- "The Uvalde shooting was horrendous and heartbreaking in every way, and we express our deepest sympathies to the families and communities who remain impacted by this senseless act of violence. Millions of people around the world enjoy video games without turning to horrific acts." We've reached out to Meta and Daniel Defense, but have not heard back. The man behind the Uvalde lawsuits is a lawyer, who the "New York Times" says is trying to hold gunmakers responsible for mass shootings. He took on the company behind the rifle used in the Sandy Hook Elementary mass shooting and reached a $73 million settlement for the families. Joining me now, Josh Koskoff, the lawyer representing the Uvalde families. Josh, thank you so much for being here. Every time we are reminded about what happened in Uvalde, it just breaks our hearts all over again. And now to learn about the latest that you're talking about, I mean this lawsuit, it goes after a school -- a social media company, the video game company, the gun manufacturer, and I'm wondering in your eyes how this lawsuit came to be in holding or trying to hold all three companies responsible. JOSH KOSKOFF, LAWYER REPRESENTING THE UVALDE FAMILIES: Well, thank you, Laura. It really came about initially through my work with the Sandy Hook case. You know, I used to think that it was all the gun company and they did everything wrong to result in the mass shooting, and that's -- I think at the end of the day, had their conduct been appropriate, we're not having this conversation. But the truth is that the gun industry doesn't act alone in targeting kids. The gun industry doesn't act alone in helping deliver a message to kids at a vulnerable time of their lives to solve their problems with killing. And they have to reach the target audience. And I think what I've learned is that in this competitive area where gun companies are competing to sell AR-15s, they have to keep getting younger and younger. They like them young. But they can't reach them without the help of these modern ways of marketing, namely in the case -- in this case, through first-person shooter game "Call of Duty" and through Instagram. COATES: Well, what do you say to those who would say -- there's a lot of people who play these games and do not commit the heinous acts of particularly this shooter or others. Is this the one-off or this is the foreseeable consequence of the confluence of all those things? KOSKOFF: It's definitely for foreseeable confluence. I mean, how many people does it take to go into an elementary school and slaughter children in the classroom, or in the case of Parkland, high school kids? I mean, it's not just a one-off in terms of Activision, anyway. What we know about the three largest school shootings in American history that took place at K through 12, all kids under 21, Laura, all wielding an AR-15, and all avid religious "Call of Duty" players. This is hardly a one-off. And Activision knows it. And it's just not -- it's not -- it's not an answer to wrongdoing to say that we've only contributed to one or two or in this case three, at least, mass slaughters of children. You know, there should -- they shouldn't be contributing to one, and they can do something about that conduct. COATES: You represented the families of the Sandy Hook victims in their lawsuit against the manufacturer of the rifle that was used in that shooting. I think it was a Remington. That led to a significant settlement. Because gun manufacturers have federal protections from a 2005 law, though, there is still this nuance in the way that it can be applied and how you can go after. So, what lessons can be learned from what happened in Sandy Hook that could ultimately be applied in a case like this? KOSKOFF: Right, well, the law you're referring to is called the Protection of Lawful Commerce and Arms Act. It does not protect unlawful commerce and arms. And specifically, in the areas of sales and marketing. So, if a gun company or gun interest violates a state statute that is applicable to the sale or marketing of firearms, they can be held accountable. So, it's quite simply that in Sandy Hook, the gun company violated Connecticut's unfair trade practices law. In this case, the Daniel Defense clearly violated this state of Texas statute that prohibits sale -- offering to sell firearms to minors. We know that because there's a direct email, at least one, from Daniel Defense to this young shooter when he was 17, offering to sell him the rifle that he would ultimately purchase and use at Uvalde. [23:55:08] That's not protected at all by the law. COATES: When you look at all these, what do you think will be the result or what are you asking for specifically? Is it a monetary judgment? Is it a change in behavior? Is it targeting each entity quite differently depending upon what their role has been? KOSKOFF: Well, we can say one thing about these three defendants. The only thing that motivates them is money. The only thing that motivates them to sell to a younger and younger audience, to court young children and adolescents with guns. The only reason Instagram wants to be the corporate mule that delivers a Daniel Defense to the doorstep of a child is because of money. It's because of attention. And that's where they get money, in Instagram's case. In Activision's case, it's because they habituate children to killing. They train them to kill. They teach them tactics. They expose them to products they can go out and buy. Why? Money. And, of course, in Daniel Defense's case, it's the craven pursuit of money and to beat out the competition that causes them to reach out to children and adolescents to sell violence and murder. So, yes, it is a -- so, yes. In that sense, the only way to get them to change is to deliver a blow to where it counts for them, and that's on their bottom line. So, the compensation in this case, hopefully, will do that. COATES: Josh Koskoff, thank you so much for illuminating this very important issue. And, of course, to the families of those who have lost their loved ones, our hearts continue to just pound in anticipation for a day when this no longer happens again. Thank you so much. KOSKOFF: Amen, Laura. Thank you. COATES: And thank you all for watching. Our coverage continues with "Anderson Cooper 360" next. (COMMERCIAL BREAK)