0:00

Live from the nation's capital, President Joe

0:02

Biden and comedian Colin Jost headline the

0:05

White House Correspondents Dinner. See all the

0:07

biggest stars together in one room live,

0:09

April 27th at 8pm on CNN and

0:11

streaming on Max. Quality.

0:14

Sleep is essential. That's why the sleep number

0:17

Smart Bad is designed for your ever evolving

0:19

sleep needs so you can choose what's right

0:21

for you whenever you like me. to Bad:

0:23

that's firmer, softer on either side, and helps

0:25

you sleep. But. A comfortable temperature sleep

0:27

number does that. J.D.

0:30

Power ranks Sleep Number number one in customer satisfaction

0:32

with mattresses purchased in store. And now, save 40%

0:34

on Sleep Number Limited Edition Smart Beds for a

0:36

limited time. For

0:39

J.D. Power 2023 award information,

0:41

visit jdpower.com/awards. Only at Sleep

0:44

Number stores or sleepnumber.com. Good

0:51

evening. Welcome to our continuing special prime

0:53

time coverage of the fast-moving Trump hush

0:56

money trial. Day 8 saw three witnesses

0:58

testify. Former National Enquirer publisher David Pecker

1:00

wrapping up a week on the stand.

1:02

Former Trump personal assistant Rona Graf, seemingly

1:04

undermining the former president's denial of affairs

1:07

with Stormy Daniels and Karen McDougall. And

1:09

a former executive of the bank where Michael Cohen arranged

1:11

the $130,000 Daniels payout. Rona

1:15

Graf, under defense cross-examination admitting she

1:17

was not testifying by choice, but

1:19

nonetheless telling prosecutors that she kept

1:21

contact information for the two women her boss had denied.

1:24

Knowing intimately, including Stormy Daniels cell

1:27

phone number and two addresses for

1:29

Karen McDougall. She also said

1:31

she vaguely recalled once seeing Daniels at Trump Tower

1:33

on the 26th floor. Then

1:35

when prompted by the defense, she said it might have

1:37

been in connection with the apprentice. Earlier,

1:40

the defense tried hard to undermine former

1:42

National Enquirer publisher David Pecker, an upcoming

1:44

witness, Michael Cohen. The Trump's

1:46

attorney, Emil Bovet, asking if he

1:48

believed Cohen was prone to exaggeration.

1:51

Pecker agreeing that he was. At the

1:53

end of it all, the former president had this to

1:55

say about the trial so far. that

2:00

we've all been sitting in this

2:03

courthouse. This

2:05

is only fighting indictment. It's

2:08

in order to try and win an election,

2:10

political opponent, and nothing like

2:12

this has ever happened. Eight days, our country

2:14

is going to hell, and

2:17

we sit here day after day after day, which

2:19

is their plan. The

2:21

former president offered no evidence, of course, to

2:23

back up any of those claims. There's no

2:26

evidence that any of what he said is

2:28

true. Joining us tonight, New York criminal defense

2:30

attorney Arthur Aydala, also attorney and former apprentice

2:32

contestant, Stacy Schneider, CNN political commentator, Earl Lewis,

2:34

CNN legal analyst, Karen Friedman Agnifolo, and Ellie

2:36

Honig, and CNN's Kara Scannell, who is in

2:39

the courtroom today and will be going through

2:41

the transcript for us throughout the night. I

2:43

want to ask this to everybody, Kara, for you.

2:46

What stood out today? Well, I

2:48

had an actual front row seat today

2:50

sitting just behind Donald Trump. And when

2:52

David Pecker was testifying, Trump essentially maintained

2:54

the same position the whole time. It

2:56

seemed like it was a bit tedious

2:58

or boring to him. He was just

3:00

sitting back in his chair with

3:03

his head cocked in the direction of

3:05

David Pecker. It's hard to completely make

3:08

out his facial expressions. But when Rhoda

3:10

Graff took the stand, we saw his

3:12

body language change dramatically. She was testifying

3:14

pretty favorably about him under cross-examination by

3:17

his lawyer. And he then had

3:19

shifted his chair so he could look directly

3:21

at her. And then when she was leaving

3:23

the stand, it happened to be at a

3:25

break. And he stood up, which is normal.

3:27

And it looked as though he was trying

3:29

to move toward her as if to talk

3:31

to her. But it didn't seem like

3:33

they had made any kind of connection. But it

3:36

was a long day in court. And he seemed

3:38

to just take it in listening, but

3:42

not really even actively engaging as much as

3:44

his attorneys, as we've seen in other days

3:46

where he was actively passing notes. Today,

3:48

he just seemed to be taking it in. Ellie, to

3:51

you, what stood out? So the banker, the third

3:53

witness, is the least sensational witness

3:55

that we've heard from, but also, in my

3:57

view, the most important. Because when people

3:59

ask for help, Well, where's the crime? It's really

4:01

important to remember because we've just spent a

4:03

week immersed in hush money payments and porn

4:05

stars and payouts. The crime is in the

4:08

financing. And now we're finally getting to that.

4:10

This banker basically started to establish that Michael

4:12

Cohen was eager to get this line of

4:15

financing set up. He felt a sense of

4:17

urgency and there was some need to be

4:19

undercover about the way they did it. And

4:22

it's important to keep in mind. Michael Cohen is the prosecution's

4:24

star witness, but they have to show he

4:26

committed a crime because if the jury does not

4:28

believe Michael Cohen committed a crime, it's over. There's

4:30

no way Donald Trump committed a crime, let's Michael

4:32

Cohen. Is it pretty easy to show Michael Cohen

4:34

committed a crime given he spent time in prison?

4:37

Yeah, he pled to the federal offense, which is

4:39

a little different than the falsifying documents, which is

4:41

the state offense. He'll say he

4:43

committed a crime, so it won't be that hard. But

4:46

you want to establish exactly how he committed the

4:48

crime, which is through this financing, and then tie

4:50

Donald Trump right to that. Karen,

4:52

how about you? I think what

4:54

stood out to me this week is the

4:57

entire defense is starting to take shape. We're

4:59

starting to understand how they're going to present

5:01

their defense, and it's largely through the people's

5:03

witnesses. Rather than going on

5:06

the attack and going on the offensive against

5:08

the witnesses that have testified so far,

5:10

they're sort of embracing the facts, but

5:12

saying, yeah, these things happened. Yeah,

5:14

there was hush money paid, but we've been doing

5:16

that. That was being done for everybody. It had

5:18

nothing to do with the election. This is just

5:21

a business model. And this is how it went.

5:24

This is essentially how David

5:26

Pecker made his money, and

5:29

I just benefited from it too.

5:31

So did he. It had nothing

5:33

to do with the election, nothing to

5:35

do with the election interference. And the

5:37

reason that's significant is because, Ellie's right,

5:39

it's all about the records, but that's

5:41

just a misdemeanor. What gets it to

5:43

a felony is if it was done

5:45

in furtherance of some sort of other

5:47

crime-like election fraud. So

5:49

I thought that was interesting, because sometimes defense

5:51

attorneys will go on the attack and they'll

5:54

really attack the credibility and say, this didn't

5:56

happen. And there was a

5:58

little bit of that with David Pecker. but not

6:00

a lot. Just a few little things. It

6:02

was really mostly, yes, this is what happened,

6:05

but nothing to see here. It's not a crime.

6:07

And Errol, I mean, Pekka has said that this

6:11

was about the election. I mean, he said

6:13

he also was concerned about his family, but

6:15

the election was front and center.

6:17

Yeah. He pointed out that more or less

6:19

the family was at best a secondary consideration.

6:21

I was really struck by the fact that

6:23

even he had some limits. I mean, he's

6:25

talking about a very unsavory enterprise. Pekka. Yeah.

6:28

Very unsavory enterprise. Paying

6:31

people to sort of buy

6:33

their stories and then bury those stories.

6:36

Putting out proactively, I thought that was

6:38

also interesting, proactively putting out all kinds

6:40

of false stories against Trump's enemies. This

6:42

was sort of a complete enterprise. But

6:45

then to also hear him say that there were

6:48

limits to that, that he didn't want to buy

6:50

Stormy Daniels' story. He says, I'm not the bank.

6:52

I'm not going to be an endless source of

6:54

money to buy off all of your mistresses or

6:56

all of the people that you want to keep

6:58

quiet. It was interesting to me that even within

7:01

this really distasteful enterprise that he was running,

7:03

he felt like he had some limits. Apparently,

7:05

he had talked with some of the lawyers

7:08

for the inquirer and was

7:10

told, don't take that extra step.

7:12

This could actually have some reputational harm. This

7:14

could be a problem for you somewhere down

7:16

the line. That's why Michael

7:18

Cohen ended up dipping into his own resources.

7:21

Stacy, how about for you? What's your job? That

7:24

is interesting for me because

7:26

Rona Graff took the stand

7:28

and I know Rona Graff from being on the

7:30

show. She is the nicest

7:32

woman in the world. I always wondered

7:35

how she made it through more than

7:37

30 years working for a difficult Donald

7:39

Trump, but she literally is his gatekeeper.

7:41

She knows all his schedules. Even though

7:43

her testimony was really short, the

7:46

prosecution is being strategic. They

7:48

got in those nuggets that

7:50

Rona knew that Donald

7:53

Trump had Stormy Daniels and Karen McDougal's

7:55

phone numbers in his directory. Rona controls

7:58

all the phone numbers that Donald Trump needs access

8:01

to. And the fact

8:03

that Stormy Daniels was in Trump Tower, she

8:05

has a memory of her being there. And

8:08

regardless of what the purpose of Stormy Daniels

8:10

being there was at that time,

8:12

when you have

8:14

Michael Cohen coming in, who the

8:16

defense is going to completely argue,

8:19

as we all know, has credibility

8:21

issues, placing Stormy in the building

8:23

at Trump Tower is an advantage

8:25

rather than just Stormy and Donald

8:28

Trump being photographed together. It's

8:30

sort of little nuggets that eventually I think will

8:32

be tied up later in the case. So that

8:34

was, and Rona was also

8:36

a humanizing witness

8:39

for Donald Trump. Incidentally, she

8:41

was a prosecution witness, but

8:43

she's affectionate about her boss

8:45

and she always cared for

8:47

him. And when Michael

8:49

Cohen comes in, who is the most

8:51

disgruntled former employee on the planet, the

8:55

defense might remind the jury in closing statement

8:57

that, hey, Donald Trump is not who Michael

8:59

Cohen says he is. That might be a

9:01

strategy we'll see. Are there, how do you

9:03

think the prosecutions or the defense is doing? Well,

9:06

you know, Karen has an enormous amount

9:08

of experience. And you know,

9:10

the other night, or maybe last night

9:12

when I said, you know, there's an

9:15

underlying element of like jury nullification, which

9:17

is like, okay, yeah,

9:19

this all happened. Really folks,

9:21

are you really, really going to put this guy

9:24

in jail for this, for these crimes that you're

9:26

not even going to understand when the judge reads

9:28

the charge to you exactly what's going on here.

9:30

And we just heard from Mr. Pekka that it

9:32

goes on all the time with celebrities and different

9:34

aspects of their life with Arnold Schwarzenegger was running

9:36

for governor of the biggest state in the United

9:38

States of America. Like there's this

9:41

underlying current and like

9:43

Karen's point also, there are some

9:45

times when you can attack and then there's

9:47

other times where you're like, all right, there's no way

9:50

I can get around this. Right. So

9:52

let me figure out a way to adopt it and

9:54

make it my own and use it

9:56

in the way most beneficial to me

9:58

because I'll lose credibility. the jury if

10:00

I try to say that black is white and

10:02

white is black. But if I figure out a

10:05

way to say it's either black and I love

10:07

black or it's white and I love white or

10:09

it's a little gray but not be this like

10:11

a tech dog. What I wanted to ask was

10:14

Susan necklace question this witness correct? What was

10:16

because I know I know of her she's

10:18

like a mentor almost in that she's a

10:21

very very well known and well regarded

10:24

criminal defense attorney. What was it like

10:26

in the courtroom with having a woman

10:28

stand up and conducting this and she's

10:31

really a skilled lawyer so I'm just

10:33

curious with the dynamic changed. Well

10:35

the prosecutor who did a question was also

10:37

female with Susan Hoffinger who asked her the

10:39

questions and she went through she was using

10:41

graph to get in these documents because they

10:44

haven't had stipulations on a lot of the

10:46

business records. So we're going to see a

10:48

lot of these document witnesses but when Susan

10:50

necklace took the podium and she was asking

10:52

her to graph these questions you know she

10:54

was leaning into the humanizing factor of Donald

10:56

Trump and at one point after a few

10:59

questions that she got in the prosecutors objected

11:01

and the judge had you know sustained

11:03

it essentially was like okay we need to move on to

11:05

the next topic because she was drawing

11:07

out the favorable image of Donald Trump

11:10

through the eyes of Rona Graff. Kerry you've been

11:12

looking at through the transcripts which we get them

11:14

very late in the day what what what have

11:16

you been noted? Well on the on

11:18

the cross examination of David Pekker today you

11:21

know the core of his he's a vehicle

11:23

by the prosecution to set the stage and

11:25

to talk about this August 2015 meeting

11:28

in which this catch-and-kill conspiracy as the

11:30

prosecution has laid it out began where

11:32

he met with Donald Trump and Michael

11:34

Cohen so they were trying to go

11:37

back to that meeting and suggest that

11:39

it was just like business as usual

11:41

it was standard operating procedure for the

11:43

National Enquirer so um Emil

11:45

Beauvais one of Trump's defense lawyers had asked

11:48

Pekker on the stand I want you I want to stick

11:50

with the August 2015 Trump Tower

11:52

meeting okay Pekker says yes

11:54

Beauvais says at that meeting

11:56

the concept of catch-and-kill was

11:58

not discussed correct Pekker said that's

12:00

correct. So they asked. And then

12:02

there was no discussion of a financial

12:04

dimension to any agreement at that meeting,

12:07

correct? Pecker said, yes, that's correct. So

12:09

trying to say that there was no

12:11

blatant conversation about a catch and kill

12:13

and that I'm going to buy the

12:15

deal. Now, on redirect with the prosecution,

12:18

they tried to put that back together

12:20

with Pecker saying, I talked about either

12:22

someone would have to buy the story.

12:25

If it wasn't me, it was going to be, he was

12:27

saying I was going to tell Michael Cohen. And Michael Cohen was

12:30

going to find someone who would take care of it. So

12:32

they put it back together. But this was a strategy

12:34

by the defense. That October meeting in 2015

12:36

is important for the prosecution because

12:40

that's really the origin

12:42

of this arrangement that then moved forward.

12:44

And we saw the results for the

12:46

doorman and McDougal and then later Stormy

12:49

Daniels, even though National Choir didn't buy

12:51

Stormy Daniels' story. Right, exactly. I

12:53

mean, this is the beginning of the

12:55

conspiracy. And it was, as Pecker testified,

12:57

it was Donald Trump's idea to have

12:59

the meeting and that Donald Trump asked

13:01

him, what can you and your magazine

13:03

do for me? So

13:05

this was the piece that Trump's

13:08

team was trying to chip away at that

13:10

they would have published a lot of these

13:12

stories about Trump's opponents anyway, because that's what

13:14

the National Enquirer does. And it was good

13:16

for business for them because they would benefit

13:19

their readers like Donald Trump. That

13:21

was one of the things that came out in

13:23

the testimony that they had prior to that meeting,

13:25

they had already published negative stories. Isn't that right?

13:28

Ben Carson. And well, they went

13:30

through a couple of things that they

13:32

showed that The Guardian had already published

13:34

a lot of these stories about Ben

13:36

Carson. And the National Enquirer was just

13:38

recycling it and that it was coinciding

13:40

with poll results. And they also established

13:42

that the National Enquirer had already done

13:44

a bunch of negative stories on Bill

13:46

and Hillary Clinton that predated this meeting.

13:48

So it wasn't something that was necessarily

13:51

hatch then saying there was already a

13:53

pattern here. So trying to

13:55

really emphasizing that this is what the

13:57

National Enquirer does. And then prosecutors trying

13:59

to say that every. everything was different in

14:01

2015 because they did some of these

14:03

things like bearing the Karen McDougal story

14:05

that didn't benefit them. Much more to

14:07

talk about, including more from the trial transcripts up next

14:10

to a point that Errol Lewis brought up earlier at

14:12

the moment on the stand when David Hecker admitted

14:14

there were conditions under which he would

14:16

publish a story damaging to the former

14:19

president. We'll be right back.

14:22

This podcast is supported by Sleep Number. Quality

14:25

sleep is essential. That's why the Sleep Number

14:27

Smart Bed is designed for your ever evolving

14:29

sleep needs, so you can choose what's right

14:31

for each of you whenever you like. Need

14:33

a bed that's firmer or softer on either

14:35

side? Helps you sleep at a comfortable temperature.

14:37

Quiets their snores. Sleep Number does

14:39

that. Only. Sleep Number: Smart Beds

14:42

let you each choose your ideal comfort

14:44

and support your sleep. number. Setting: Sleep.

14:47

Number Smart Beds learn how you sleep

14:49

and provide personalised insights to help. You

14:51

sleep better. All sleep number Smart beds

14:53

Future cooling pressure Live in comfort. Layers.

14:57

Temperature Balancing Bedding is designed to move heat

14:59

and moisture away when you're hot. When

15:02

you're cool, they hold their energy to help warm you. Sleep

15:04

Better Together Jd Power ranked Sleep number

15:06

number one in customer satisfaction with mattresses

15:09

purchased and store and now see forty

15:11

percent on sleep number. Limited edition smart

15:13

bed. For a limited time for

15:15

Jdpower Twenty Twenty Three Award

15:17

information, visit jdpower.com/awards. I'm

15:24

Dr. Sanjay Gupta, CNN's chief medical

15:26

correspondent. This week on Chasing

15:28

Life, I'm sorry that the Great Barrier

15:30

Reef is no longer great, that we

15:32

value Amazon much more than the Amazon,

15:34

and that the waterfront neighborhood where you

15:36

were growing up could be condemned by

15:38

rising seas before you're old enough to

15:40

apply for a mortgage. That's my friend

15:42

Bill Weir, CNN's chief climate correspondent. He's

15:44

optimistic about the planet and he's optimistic

15:46

about our ability to take care of

15:48

it. I'm here to chase

15:50

life wherever you get your podcasts. how

16:00

he bought and killed stories on behalf of

16:02

Donald Trump. This, of course, had the center

16:04

of the prosecution's theory of the case and

16:06

why he was their lead witness. Today, under

16:08

cross-examination, though, he admitted there were limits to

16:10

that arrangement and conditions under which he would

16:12

publish something damaging to his

16:15

friends, specifically regarding the first catch-and-kill story

16:17

of Dorman's false claim that the former

16:19

president fathered a child out of wedlock.

16:21

Here's the exchange between Pekar and Trump's

16:24

attorney, Emil Bovet. Bovet said, so if

16:26

this story was true, meaning

16:28

the Dorman story, you were gonna run it,

16:30

correct? Pekar says yes, because you had a

16:32

fiduciary obligation to do that, right, says Bovet?

16:35

Pekar says that is correct. Bovet

16:37

said it would have made business sense to put

16:39

it mildly to run such an article if it

16:41

was true, correct, to which Pekar replied yes.

16:43

Now, we should point out, in testimony earlier

16:45

this week, Pekar did testify under

16:48

oath that if he ran the story, it

16:50

would have been after the election, which

16:52

makes the argument that this was to protect

16:55

Trump going into the election, but as soon

16:57

as the election was over, Pekar

16:59

would have run that Dorman story because it

17:02

would have been, in his words, extremely popular,

17:04

or not his exact words, but he said

17:06

it would have been extremely popular among the

17:08

National Choir audience. Back with the panel, joining

17:10

us as well is Barry Levine, former executive

17:12

editor of the National Enquirer. Barry,

17:14

I'm wondering, I mean, you know David Pekar, obviously, well, you

17:17

worked at the Enquirer for a long time. You

17:19

had some involvement with that Dorman story. How do

17:21

you, what do you make of him as a

17:23

witness? Well,

17:25

listen, I was there, Anderson, for 17 years. I

17:28

was actually the first editorial hire for David

17:30

Pekar back in 1999. It's

17:34

certainly troubling to be watching

17:38

this unfold and thinking back

17:40

to the great years of

17:42

breaking so many great stories, John

17:44

Edwards, Tiger Woods, Jesse Jackson's paternity

17:47

of a child. I

17:49

was, I left the Enquirer

17:53

after the Dorman story two

17:56

months before the Karen McDougall story, before

17:58

they got involved with that. And the

18:01

last Trump story that I did

18:04

work on was the doorman story. And

18:08

I mean David Pecker was absolutely right

18:10

had that story turned out to be

18:12

true and he published it. It would

18:14

have been a mega sale. It might

18:16

have sold millions of copies.

18:18

Did you know that he was

18:20

going to kill it if it turned out regardless

18:22

of what it turned out to be? I

18:25

mean I remember going back to 2010 when, you

18:27

know, and I

18:30

knew back from the early days that

18:32

David was close to

18:35

Donald Trump, that

18:37

they were close friends. Back

18:39

in 2010 I did an interview with Donald

18:41

Trump when he was actually thinking about running

18:44

for president in 2012. And

18:47

just from the way we presented that

18:49

story, I'm going to say of America,

18:51

I realized very quickly back then

18:54

that this was probably the way it was going

18:56

to go with Donald Trump. 2012

18:59

of course never happened. Did you know he

19:01

was going to kill the doorman story? Yes.

19:05

In fact, we

19:07

investigated the story very, very rapidly. I

19:09

mean on John Edwards I took two

19:12

years, my reporting team, to prove that

19:14

story. When the doorman

19:16

story came down the pike, I

19:18

talked to Dylan Howard who was

19:20

my editor and said, listen, we

19:22

need some time. I said,

19:25

you know, I sensed that Michael

19:27

Cohen's going to find out about this and Donald

19:29

Trump is going to eventually find out about this.

19:31

But for the sake of the

19:33

inquirer, for the sake of our legacy in

19:36

terms of breaking these types of stories, let

19:38

us at least work the story. And

19:40

we did investigate it for a very

19:42

short period of time. Dispatch reporters got

19:44

photos of the woman and her daughter.

19:46

Did you know that you were doing

19:48

that for Donald Trump? I

19:50

mean, did you know that you were- No, I

19:53

had no real idea, Anderson, that there had been

19:55

an actual arrangement. I didn't learn that until the-

20:00

In wires and what issue so what was

20:02

the process? I mean, you know, obviously look

20:04

that you the the choir broke the John

20:06

Edwards story You

20:08

know got there was a nomination for Pulitzer for

20:10

that But they

20:13

also I mean as has been testified to you

20:15

know, pecker said they put out the story about

20:17

Ted Cruz's father Which you know, he said it

20:19

was completely made up. What was that discussion? Like

20:21

if you knew a story was just made up

20:25

But we're gonna edit it and go with

20:27

it. Anyway, yeah With

20:29

the doorman we shut down

20:31

the story after a brief period of time

20:33

Sensing that the story probably was false

20:36

and the doorman was was paid the $30,000 Which

20:42

I would have liked to have had more

20:44

time to investigate it certainly And is was

20:46

that widely known within the company like oh,

20:48

he's being paid $30,000. No, it was it

20:50

was known among the editors It was a

20:52

very tight-knit Group the

20:54

lawyer certain certainly knew in

20:58

terms of the Ted

21:00

Cruz Oswald the father story. I

21:03

mean, I was ready gone from them and saw

21:07

the story on the newsstand and thought

21:10

you know You know what's going on

21:12

here? The Inquirer's entered the

21:14

Twilight Zone to some degree I

21:16

mean things had gone completely over

21:18

the over the edge. Is

21:20

there any other plausible explanation for pecker?

21:24

Catching and killing the Karen McDougal

21:26

story and team up-comp

21:30

And Cohen for the story Daniel thing other than to

21:32

protect the campaign I mean you have no doubt that

21:34

this do or do you do you have any doubt

21:36

that this was about protecting the campaign as Opposed to

21:38

what some of the Trump's people had been saying is

21:40

well look he was concerned about You

21:42

know his wife finding out. No, it

21:45

was it was it was completely for the campaign.

21:47

I mean this was absolutely

21:50

transactional and You

21:52

know I'm left now still wondering as

21:54

I listen to the reports of the

21:57

David pecker's testimony why he would sacrifice

22:01

the inquirer, why he would sacrifice

22:03

the legacy of great tabloid reporting.

22:07

And he said Donald Trump had been his

22:09

mentor. And like

22:11

the Edwards story, the

22:14

campaign aide, Andrew Young, had claimed

22:17

falsely that he was the father of

22:19

the child to protect John Edward. In

22:22

this particular case, it

22:24

was an unhinged type of loyalty

22:27

with Michael Cohen, with David Pekker. And

22:30

Pekker also testified that he had done this

22:32

with, or that Arnold Schwarzenegger had approached him

22:34

that other celebrities had. Were

22:36

you, I mean, did you know about

22:39

this history? How common was this sort

22:41

of catching a killing, even though Pekker didn't use that term?

22:44

I mean, I think from his testimony, it

22:46

seemed like this was happening all the time.

22:48

I mean, they were rare cases. We never

22:50

went out to spend

22:52

time investigating stories and not running them. I mean,

22:54

we had to fill the book with 40 stories

22:57

a week. My interest, the

23:00

reporting teams that I directed, we wanted

23:02

to break stories. These reporters were raring

23:04

to go, knocking on doors, staking people

23:07

out, looking at documents. We

23:09

were never a fan of stories that

23:11

never made it into the paper. But

23:14

of course it was his paper. He was

23:16

the publisher and he had friends. And there

23:18

were times when some

23:20

good stories probably were buried,

23:22

unfortunately. And the pain

23:24

for stories, how did that work? I mean,

23:26

when you're working a story, you have the

23:29

reporters out staking people out, going through garbage

23:31

or whatever it is, hanging outside

23:33

their homes. Is there a

23:35

set sort of like priceless for, I mean,

23:38

how do you determine what it's worth? I

23:40

mean, first of all,

23:43

I think it's, the irony is the

23:45

big stories that we worked on over

23:47

the years and also goes to the

23:49

early days of the Inquirer, the Gary

23:51

Hart stories, the OJ stories. Most

23:54

of those stories you can't write a check for.

23:56

You have to investigate. You have to send reporters

23:58

out. You have to do the digging. knock

24:00

on the doors, you have to cultivate sources who

24:02

are going to trust you. That

24:05

went into the great stories. We

24:07

couldn't write a check for John Edwards. It

24:09

took two years. But your sources, you pay

24:12

sources. I mean, like the people surrounding Karen

24:14

McDougall. Yes, there's no question for exclusivity when

24:16

you're a weekly publication and you need to

24:19

hold someone from speaking to another media

24:21

organization for a week's time. You're going to

24:23

put them under some type of exclusivity.

24:25

It could be a couple hundred dollars. It

24:28

could be several thousands of dollars. I

24:30

mean, we operated no differently. I

24:32

mean, we were bold about the fact that

24:34

we practiced checkbook journalism. And certainly there

24:37

were individuals who called the Inquirer tip

24:39

line specifically because they were looking for

24:42

money. But

24:44

television shows would pay for video.

24:46

They would pay still pay

24:48

for somebody's scrapbook or still

24:50

photos. It would justify some payments, but

24:52

they weren't as direct as the National

24:55

Inquirer. In

24:57

terms of what it's become, I

24:59

mean, it is

25:01

a shadow of its former self in

25:04

terms of readership in terms of

25:06

do you think that they do you think

25:08

it will continue? I mean, that's

25:11

you know, that is so hard to say. I

25:13

feel a great deal of sadness

25:17

over the way Pekka came

25:20

forward and just talked about checkbook

25:22

journalism, talking about routinely

25:26

doing catching kills. Because it made it seem

25:29

like no matter what

25:31

your personal beliefs were of the work

25:33

you were doing for so long, David

25:37

Pekka was using this to cultivate friends and

25:39

to be like a remora fish on the

25:41

shark of Donald Trump. I mean, to kind

25:43

of be in Trump's orbit, he enjoyed that.

25:45

Yeah, I mean, there's no question

25:48

about that. I have no ill will

25:50

towards him. He was a great employer for me

25:52

for 17 years. However,

25:54

I do feel like so many

25:56

other former employees that I see

25:58

on Facebook and. elsewhere that he

26:01

took what had been a great

26:03

legacy part of Americana pop culture

26:06

and he weaponized it. Genaroso

26:08

Pope would have been the original owner

26:10

who created a national inquirer. His

26:13

son came out in 2019 and said his

26:15

father, Genaroso Pope is

26:17

rolling over in his grave because

26:20

of what David Pecker did in terms of

26:22

weaponizing the paper for a

26:25

political campaign. And I end up

26:27

writing a book, All

26:31

the President's Women, Donald Trump, in the making of a

26:34

predator, trying to do the

26:36

work that the inquirer reporters could have

26:38

done over the years because there was

26:40

so much on Donald Trump that could

26:42

have been reported and had

26:44

they reported

26:47

out the Karen McDougal story and

26:49

Stormy Daniels, it could

26:51

have changed the course of the election. Barry,

26:53

I appreciate your time tonight. Thank you so

26:55

much. Coming up next, Caris Canell is continuing

26:57

to go through today's Corbin transcript. I think

27:00

her son is just out, but she is finding it.

27:04

The assignment with me, Audie Cornish. There's

27:07

been a ton of writing about the

27:09

album, Cowboy Carter, since it dropped this

27:11

spring. But what grabbed my attention is

27:13

a new documentary on CNN called Call

27:16

Me Country, Beyonce and Nashville's Renaissance. Lots

27:18

of artists have tried to boot scoot

27:20

their way onto country music charts. Why

27:23

did this album cause such a stir? And

27:26

what about both this pop star and

27:28

this political moment has caused

27:30

all this conversation? Listen to

27:32

the assignment with me, Audie Cornish,

27:34

on your favorite podcast app. We're

27:40

learning more about a testy exchange in day eight

27:42

of the Trump-Hush money trial today from the full

27:44

transcript just released in CNN's Caris Canell has continued

27:46

to go through it. She's back with us. So

27:48

how did David Pecker push back on some of

27:51

the defense's tax on his credibility? I guess the

27:53

taxes may be a little bit wrong. Yeah,

27:55

they're looking to try to find inconsistencies. So maybe

27:57

the jury thinks his memory's not so good or

27:59

it's too rare. But one piece of his

28:01

testimony that he gave on direct was about

28:03

a January 2017 meeting. He

28:06

said he went to Trump Tower. He saw

28:08

Donald Trump and that Donald Trump had thanked

28:10

him for taking care of the doorman story

28:12

and Karen McDougal story. Then

28:14

Trump's lawyer saying, confronting with him some

28:17

notes that an FBI agent had taken

28:19

after an interview David Pecker gave to

28:21

them. And in those FBI notes, the

28:24

notes say that David Pecker didn't recall any

28:26

gratitude from Donald Trump. It's a little bit

28:28

challenging on that. Asking

28:31

him about that, David Pecker says, I know what I

28:33

remember. This is going back to 2018. I

28:35

didn't recall back from what I'm saying

28:38

here is that during the FBI investigation,

28:40

I know what I said yesterday happened,

28:42

so I can't reconcile what the FBI

28:45

interview was if someone made a mistake

28:47

or not. Bevay says, so you can't

28:49

reconcile because what you said yesterday is

28:51

inconsistent with what's in this report, correct?

28:54

Pecker says yes, but I wouldn't be responsible

28:57

for this report. So they said, I understand.

28:59

And so you're suggesting that the FBI made

29:01

a mistake here. Pecker said, I know

29:03

what the truth is. I'm not, I can't state

29:05

what the what's here, why this was written this

29:07

way. I know exactly what was said to me.

29:10

So I don't think the defense, Donald

29:12

Trump's defense did much to impact David

29:15

Pecker's credibility. That's a small ding

29:17

right there. But they did something better. They

29:20

are using David Pecker's testimony to undermine

29:22

Michael Cohen. The three best words that

29:24

the defense has on the record for

29:27

so far came today. Prone

29:29

to exaggeration. They got David Pecker to say

29:31

Michael Cohen is prone to exaggeration. And so

29:33

they're going to do that, by the way,

29:35

with a lot of other witnesses. If Kellyanne

29:37

Conway takes the stand, I bet she has

29:39

negative things to say about Michael Cohen. Maybe

29:42

Hope Hicks too. And what you do is a

29:44

defense lawyer, not my profession arts, but I've seen

29:46

enough good ones in action. When

29:49

it comes time for closing, go, folks, their

29:51

own witnesses, the first guy they put in

29:53

front of you, David Pecker said that their

29:55

star witness is quote, prone to exaggeration. If

29:57

you find that he exaggerated you this case.

30:00

is over. So that's a really smart

30:02

and effective tactic. But you

30:04

know, Michael Cohen can be restored as

30:06

the star witness so easily because people

30:08

forget or maybe don't forget that

30:11

he pled guilty to the same

30:13

scheme that Trump is now being

30:16

put on trial for. And people

30:18

generally as a defense lawyer do not

30:20

plead guilty to things they didn't do.

30:23

And that plea is locked in. He

30:25

took a three year jail sentence for

30:27

the acts that he claimed in open

30:29

court when he answered his plea. I

30:32

did this at the direction of Donald Trump. And

30:34

you just can't get around that no matter how

30:36

bad the defense makes Michael Cohen look.

30:39

And it's going to be a slugfest when he

30:41

gets on the stand. I actually cannot wait to

30:43

see that happen. Arthur, how

30:45

would you do restored? You

30:47

know, sometimes the things you don't get around and

30:50

I just want to go back to what Karen

30:52

said before. And also what Ali

30:54

said, like, in other words, you've

30:57

got to pick your spots. You've got to

30:59

attack and question people's credibility and question their

31:01

memory and all of that when you can.

31:03

And when you can't, you

31:06

try to embrace it and make it your

31:08

own. Obviously

31:10

prone to exaggeration is great. But another

31:12

phrase I thought was standard operating procedure

31:14

that goes to the jury nullification. Like

31:16

they're trying to make it out that

31:18

what Donald Trump is, the prosecution is

31:21

so unique. No one has ever done

31:23

this before. And that went out the

31:25

window. As I said, my colleague, Judge

31:28

George Grasso, who's been in the court

31:30

every day, he said after his testimony,

31:33

and I think this broke our last guest's heart, but

31:35

after his testimony, I wanted to

31:38

take a shower because it shows how dirty

31:40

that industry is and enlightens all of us

31:42

how, you know, we shouldn't believe everything you

31:44

read in the National Enquirer. Cohen

32:00

pled guilty to half the crime Donald Trump

32:02

is charged with here. He pled guilty to

32:04

the campaign finance part, but not necessarily the

32:06

falsifying business records part. So that's number one.

32:09

Number two, Michael Cohen has been, let's

32:11

say, reticent, maybe even self-contradictory

32:14

about the circumstances of his federal plea. He

32:16

has been very vocal about the fact that

32:18

he feels like to put, to use Michael

32:20

Cohen's word, the Southern District of New York,

32:22

my former office, Michael said, they put a

32:24

gun to my head. They threatened my wife.

32:26

I pled guilty to things I didn't actually

32:28

commit. I committed perjury when I pled guilty.

32:30

That's Michael Cohen's story now. That's a disaster.

32:32

That's a mess. Michael Cohen is now offering

32:34

lies stacked upon lies. And

32:36

boy, the defense is going to fall in

32:39

debt. That cross-examination is going to be very

32:41

long. Kerry, the standard operating procedure, which Arthur

32:43

talked about, you actually have something in the transcript about that. Yeah.

32:46

This was an unredirect for the prosecution.

32:49

They were getting at the Karen McDougal

32:51

story and was it really bought for

32:53

the standard operating procedure line that the

32:55

defense is pushing? So the prosecutor, Joshua

32:58

Steinglass, asked David Pecker, have you published

33:00

a story about a Playboy model having

33:02

a year old sexual affair while he

33:05

was married with a

33:07

presidential candidate? Would that have sold magazines,

33:09

you think? Pecker said, yes.

33:11

Steinglass said, that would be like National

33:13

Enquirer Gold. Pecker

33:15

said, yes. Steinglass said, but at the

33:18

time you entered into that agreement, you

33:20

had zero intention of publishing that story.

33:23

Pecker said, that's correct. And the prosecutor said,

33:25

and despite the fact that publishing that story

33:27

would have helped your bottom line, you killed

33:29

the story because it helped the candidate, Donald

33:32

Trump. Pecker said, yes. So

33:34

their counter and cutting

33:36

against the standard operating procedure, obviously, if

33:38

this was National Enquirer Gold and they

33:40

would have made a fortune off the

33:42

headline, they decided not to publish it.

33:44

And that was the point prosecutors were

33:46

trying to push, that this was for

33:48

Donald Trump's candidacy, not for the bottom

33:50

line of the National Enquirer. That's also

33:52

prosecution gold. I mean, to get him

33:54

to admit that I was willing to

33:56

do something that was contrary to my

33:58

bottom line to. help a candidate. That's

34:01

exactly what they need to say. And

34:03

that's what the prosecution's trying to do

34:05

in order to make Michael Cohen irrelevant,

34:07

frankly. Could you just explain to me, because

34:09

I don't understand, how is that a crime?

34:11

How is that an element of the crimes

34:13

or the elements that the judge is going

34:15

to read after the summations? So this

34:18

crime is a bump up crime,

34:20

right? It's basically a misdemeanor plus.

34:22

So the misdemeanor is if you

34:25

falsify business records. I think everybody

34:27

thinks that's the easier part

34:29

to prove, all right?

34:31

Because you said it was for legal sake. I agree with

34:33

you. But if you did

34:35

it with the intention, the general

34:37

intention, to either conceal or

34:40

commit or aid another crime, it bumps

34:42

it up to a felony. And the

34:44

way I like to describe

34:46

it is it's like burglary, right?

34:49

Burglary is a trespass, right? Knowingly

34:51

enter and remain unlawfully somewhere, which

34:53

is a misdemeanor. But

34:55

if you add to that the intent to commit

34:58

a crime therein, it bumps it up to a

35:00

burglary. And you don't always know what the crime

35:02

is in a burglary. You don't know. Okay.

35:04

But the difference is with the burglary example

35:06

you just used, things are happening

35:08

simultaneously. You're entering and you're committing the

35:10

crime right there and then. Not

35:13

necessarily. You could

35:15

have a scenario where

35:17

somebody opens the door to

35:19

an apartment, walks in and

35:21

gets caught as he steps in the door.

35:24

And if that guy had a sleeping

35:26

bag and a toothbrush, he

35:28

was going there to sleep, that's a

35:30

misdemeanor. That's a trespass. But if instead

35:32

he had a safe cracker and he

35:34

also had things. But it's all

35:37

happening simultaneously. He's cracking the

35:39

door. He's walking in with the sleeping

35:41

bag. He's walking in with the safe

35:43

cracker. Here they're saying the misdemeanor took

35:45

place and somewhere down the road another

35:48

crime is taking place. That's the difference between the

35:50

burglars. I'm not arguing with you. I am trying

35:53

to figure this out. I have paperwork

35:55

here. It says I'm trying to figure

35:57

it out. I'm

36:00

trying to figure it out myself. I'm doing legal homework

36:02

here. I think of this as a conspiracy to

36:04

commit burglary, okay? That's a great question. So

36:06

how come, Karen, who you, you ran the

36:08

office, you know this stuff, why didn't they

36:11

charge a simple conspiracy? Because for two reasons.

36:13

Okay. A conspiracy. This is great stuff, I love

36:15

this. I hope you don't mind that. No, no way, I feel like

36:17

I'm in law school. We got two hours. I'm

36:20

enjoying this. Because falsifying business records

36:23

in the first degree is an

36:25

E felony, that's the lowest level

36:27

felony. A conspiracy to commit an

36:29

E felony is an A misdemeanor.

36:31

Number one, the statute of limitations

36:33

had run on all the misdemeanors by the time they

36:35

indicted this crime, okay? So they couldn't have.

36:38

And number two, as a prosecutor, you don't

36:40

charge a misdemeanor because you don't want the

36:42

jury to compromise on a misdemeanor. You want

36:45

them to do the felony. And you don't

36:47

need the conspiracy because the crime that they're

36:49

saying he used to, that

36:51

he intended to conceal or commit was

36:53

the state election crime, which is a

36:55

conspiracy to commit election fraud. It has

36:58

conspiracy built into it, so you didn't

37:00

need it. So I guess that was

37:02

three reasons why they didn't charge conspiracy.

37:04

I can ask the professor one

37:06

more question. So professor, here's my

37:08

question. And I'm not, you know,

37:10

wise guy by calling you professor because you're actually

37:12

educating us. The

37:15

bump up crime, I know you don't

37:17

have to articulate what it is, but

37:20

if the choice, the menu that they're

37:22

giving us are all

37:24

misdemeanors themselves that

37:26

are out of the statute of limitations,

37:29

my question is, can a misdemeanor, the

37:32

false records, that's out of

37:34

the statute of limitations, and another misdemeanor,

37:37

which is the bump up misdemeanor, is

37:39

also out of the statute of limitations.

37:41

Can you put two misdemeanors both out

37:43

of the statute of limitations, do those

37:46

two things equal a felony? Well,

37:49

they have three crimes that they are saying

37:51

is the bump up, right? State election, federal,

37:53

and tax, yeah. So

37:56

the answer is yes, the prosecution

37:58

theory. Yes,

38:00

but it's never been done before

38:03

in the history of America

38:08

Hasn't been tested on appeal, but it has been done,

38:10

but it has not been tested on it Well,

38:12

how do you how would you describe this?

38:15

Is it I mean a novel prosecution is

38:17

it? Pie

38:19

in the sky is it You

38:22

know interesting. How do you? So

38:25

the only thing the only thing unusual

38:27

about this case is the defendant This

38:30

is a bread and butter white-collar crime

38:32

in New York. This is done by

38:34

prosecutors all over the state This is

38:36

the bread and butter the Manhattan DA's

38:38

office the feds It's like the feds

38:40

who charge mail fraud and wire fraud for

38:43

everything and that you're like How how

38:45

does that a mail or wire fraud?

38:47

But it's like the charge that they

38:49

use all the time. This is done

38:51

all the time What's unusual is that

38:53

all go to trial? So

38:55

this isn't going a lot of them are allowed

38:57

to plead guilty or they plea bargain them out

38:59

And this is going to trial and of course

39:01

who the defendant is is what's also very unusual

39:03

All right We're gonna take a quick break that

39:05

was really interesting a retired New York State Supreme

39:07

Court Justice is known to judge in Trump's house

39:09

Many case for when the 15 years is joining

39:11

us for take on the prosecution's claim to the

39:13

former president Continues to violate the gag order and

39:16

what the judge might do about it in next

39:18

week's gag order appearing or before we'll be right

39:20

back So

39:25

Next Thursday judge Marche on his scheduled a

39:27

hearing on Donald Trump's alleged 14 gag order

39:29

violations The hearing comes after prosecutors say that

39:31

Trump violated the gag order four times in

39:33

just the past few days Retired New York

39:35

State Supreme Court Justice Jill Conviser joins us

39:37

once again tonight. She's known judge Marche on

39:39

for more than 15 years Are

39:42

you surprised judge that that Marche on

39:44

has not already ruled on

39:46

the gag order? No I'm

39:49

not and I'll tell you why originally when we

39:51

first had these alleged violations I thought it

39:53

would be one and done and we'd be finished

39:55

But then while this is pending and he

39:57

does a hearing to which the defendant is entitled

40:00

There was no

40:02

summary violation here. When

40:07

the defendant persists and continues to

40:09

decide he's seen seemingly violating the

40:11

order, what's the point? What's the

40:13

point of doing it to rush

40:15

it? Think about it for a minute. The goal, Judge

40:17

Michonne's goal here is to make sure both sides get

40:19

a fair trial and to get

40:22

a verdict, and to do that with

40:24

as little incident and as

40:26

much grace as possible. This

40:28

hearing and these gag

40:31

order violations are to a great extent a

40:33

sideshow. And there are plenty of people

40:35

out there, maybe some at this table, who want

40:38

to get Trump no matter what. They

40:40

want to see him in jail, or

40:42

they want to see him held responsible

40:44

for this. They want his blood. I

40:46

get that. Judge Michonne is

40:48

not one of them. He wants to keep

40:50

this trial on track, make sure he gets

40:52

the verdict. At this point, the truth is,

40:55

even if there is a finding of contempt,

40:58

there's no reason why he needs to sentence him. Now

41:00

he can wait until the end of the trial and

41:02

deal with it at that point.

41:04

Quite frankly, the DA's office, I'm pointing to

41:06

you because you're DA in Manhattan, the DA's

41:08

office, regardless of what

41:11

Judge Michonne does with the contempt, can

41:13

bring criminal contempt charges against

41:16

him through the penal

41:18

law as opposed to the judiciary law, which is what

41:21

and how Judge Michonne is proceeding.

41:24

The DA's office brought this to Judge

41:26

Michonne's attention, complained to him, put in

41:28

a request for an order to show

41:31

cause very quickly. The DA's office clearly

41:33

is taking this seriously. I

41:35

don't quite follow the logic of what's the rush.

41:38

Why leave it hanging out there, especially when

41:40

Trump continues to recidivate? What would be the

41:42

harm of the judge coming out? He

41:44

had a hearing, as you said, and saying, that's it. We

41:46

had the hearing. Here's my findings.

42:00

The defendant walks out as victor or

42:02

victim, and that's part of the

42:04

sideshow. So I don't disagree with

42:06

you that having ruled is a bad

42:08

idea, but at this point, again, because

42:11

I don't think the sentence is going to happen

42:13

until after the trial, maybe

42:15

we need to focus on the testimony. Just

42:18

one more quick question. Would you ever, under

42:20

any circumstance, if this was your case, lock

42:22

up Donald Trump based on violations

42:24

of the Gaggler? If he did it eight more

42:26

times? Depends on what the violation is. If

42:29

he keeps on posting about Michael Cohen every day, this guy's

42:31

a serial perjurer, would there ever come a point where

42:33

you would lock him up? Really?

42:36

Yeah. I've been there,

42:38

been there, done it with Convy.

42:40

I know Judge Convy. I

42:43

believe it. I believe it.

42:46

I used to bring a lunch bag with me

42:48

just in case, you know, because I didn't want

42:50

the baloney sandwich inside. I could bring it inside.

42:52

But you know, Judge Convy just said the other

42:54

night, you know, the judge is in

42:56

a tough spot because unlike

42:59

in the civil case, I think Trump was

43:01

getting hit with like $10,000 fines. That

43:05

starts being a big number for no matter who you are, $10,000 and

43:07

another $10,000. Here

43:09

by statute, it's only $1,000. That's

43:12

not exactly going to change Donald Trump's world.

43:15

And especially if he thinks, look, anytime you

43:17

represent people in the media like Trump is,

43:19

like a lot of other high profile people

43:21

are, in my opinion,

43:24

they overemphasize the public

43:26

relations aspect of the trial. They assume the

43:28

jurors are reading it. They assume the jurors

43:30

are violating the judge's orders and looking at

43:32

it. And they're trying so hard to influence

43:34

them. I haven't found that to

43:36

be the case. I found after a verdict jurors

43:38

say, yeah, I was in a cab and the

43:40

thing popped up or I was on my phone.

43:42

But I've never found a juror after questioning them

43:45

after a verdict that they, you know, blatantly

43:47

violate. Now they could be lying to me.

43:49

But I will tell you, there are certain

43:52

defendants who like, they really emphasize on getting

43:54

the message out after the jury's impaneled when

43:56

the jury's not supposed to even see it. The

43:59

goal might not be to. Those the jury so much

44:01

as really just to provoke a mistrial. It.

44:03

Ah, that that saw a win

44:05

for the defense. In any case,

44:07

typically. Then what would it take to provoke?

44:09

I'm a mistrial. Club. That the

44:12

myriad reasons. I got billion related

44:14

to to gag order. To the

44:16

gag order I guess. Hadn't thought about

44:18

that. Maybe if the defendants said something

44:21

that completely infected ah, the jury by

44:23

saying something that was so outrageous, the

44:25

so ugly this I couldn't. Be.

44:27

Fair. I don't see that the defendant

44:29

himself could a do something that could

44:32

end up as an this child and

44:34

tours could or the defendant reaching out

44:36

to a juror could be. A

44:38

What about us into my bridgeport President Trump

44:40

in prison for violating the gag orders and

44:42

it really got out and pictures were everywhere

44:44

of science, behind bars and in found that

44:46

the one of the jurors are not yours

44:48

until then. I mean George Karl Marx. You

44:50

could tell you the time in some of

44:52

them assess up. It looks I

44:55

I did see I saw the cover. the

44:57

New Opposes a picture Donald Trump's behind bars.

44:59

I don't think that's. In the style I

45:01

think that's an instruction. Ah, That's interesting.

45:04

So successful says. About.

45:10

Would sue sued but I mean that are

45:12

not. You know that there was this report

45:14

earlier that the Secret Service on the Law

45:16

Enforcement had mad or were meeting to discuss

45:18

with. you know if in this long sad

45:20

thing he was put in a you know

45:22

in a cell. How would they

45:24

actually do that but our on inches? That's.

45:27

Highly, highly, highly unlikely ali unlikely or

45:29

is certainly undesirable. but you know. But

45:32

if if if is go, let's assume

45:34

for a minute that candidate trump. Just.

45:36

Wants to delayed spent the issues of guilt or

45:39

innocence and what's gonna happen him and whether or

45:41

not he loses his freedom is something he would

45:43

like to deal with only other side of the

45:45

election. He could stand up

45:47

in court. He could say something crazy,

45:49

He could come outside of court. He

45:51

could say something crazy. He could deliberately

45:53

try and push the system to the

45:55

point where of the the trial is

45:57

either delayed or you get a missile.

46:00

We have to start over just had Caitlin Collins

46:02

joins us with an exclusive interview the former

46:04

president's attorney general William Barr About the trial

46:06

the immunity hearing and his response to former

46:08

president's mocking bars in Dorset Quality.

46:14

Sleep is essential. That's why the sleep number

46:17

Smart Bad is designed for your ever evolving

46:19

sleep needs so you can choose what's right

46:21

for you whenever you like me. to Bad:

46:23

that's firmer, softer on either side, and helps

46:25

you sleep. But. A comfortable temperature sleep

46:27

number does that. With

46:33

mattresses purchased in store and now save

46:35

40% on sleep number limited edition smartbed

46:37

for a limited time for JD power

46:40

2023 award information visit JD power comm

46:42

slash awards only at sleep number stores

46:44

or sleep number dot-com You

46:47

can now watch CNN's five things on max

46:49

each weekday Kate Baldwin breaks down to five

46:52

essential news stories in five minutes or less

46:54

She'll get you up to speed and on

46:56

with your day. See you nance five things

46:58

with Kate Baldwin streaming weekdays exclusively on max