Trump's Trials - Tearful testimony and a contempt of court ruling

Episode Date: May 4, 2024

For this episode of Trump's Trials, host Scott Detrow speaks with NPR's Ximena Bustillo and former New York Prosecutor Tristan Snell. He's a former New York prosecutor who led the state's case against Trump University, and author of the book Taking Down Trump. The third week of former President Donald Trump's criminal hush money trial ended with a high-profile witness: former Trump aide Hope Hicks. She testified about the Trump campaign's damage control efforts in the 2016 election and even took a break after briefly breaking down on the witness stand. Earlier in the week, Judge Juan Merchan fined Trump $9,000 for contempt of court for violating a gag order. And on Thursday prosecutors asked Merchan to hold him in contempt for a second time for recent comments he's made about jurors and witnesses.Follow the show on Apple Podcasts or Spotify for new episodes each Saturday.Sign up for sponsor-free episodes and support NPR's political journalism at plus.npr.org/trumpstrials.Email the show at [e-mail] more about sponsor message choices: podcastchoices.com/adchoicesNPR Privacy Policy

Tearful testimony from a one-time top trusted aide, a contempt of court ruling, and signs that more might follow. We won't go! This is a persecution. He actually just stormed out of the courtroom. Innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. It's Trump's Trials from NPR. I'm Scott Detro.

The third week of former President Donald Trump's criminal hush money trial ended with a high-profile witness, Hope Hicks, once a trusted member of Trump's inner circle, someone who eventually served as White House Communications Director. Hicks told jurors about what happened behind the scenes in Trump's 2016 presidential campaign when a bombshell Washington Post report seemed to upend the race. Other key witnesses this week included the lawyer who negotiated the alleged hush money payments for Stormy Daniels and another woman that Trump allegedly had an affair with. And the jury also heard a secret recording of a conversation between Trump and his former lawyer Michael Cohen, the man at the center of the alleged payments and cover-ups and a man testimony made

pretty clear this week that not many people seem to like. Judge Juan Marchand also held Trump in contempt for repeatedly violating a gag order. We will walk you through it all and tell you what matters after the break. I'll be joined by NPR's reporter on the scene, Amanda Bastillo, as well as Tristan Snell, a former New York prosecutor who led the state's case against Trump University and the author of the book, Taking Down Trump. Do you ever wish you could get your stories in three hours rather than three minutes? Or maybe you're sick of doom scrolling, getting your news in bits and pieces. That is where Embedded comes in.

We bring you documentary series that will change the way you think about things. Find us wherever you get your podcasts. Listen to Embedded for moments that stay with you. I could smell the smoke. I could smell the dust. Voices that resonate. Stories that change the way you think about your life. How did we get here? The Embedded podcast is NPR's home for original documentary series. Listen wherever you get your podcasts.

On It's Been A Minute, we're keeping you in the know when it comes to culture. I break down the latest trends and the forces behind them and introduce you to the creatives who think deeply about how we live today. Come for some good old cultural analysis and have a few laughs with me. Listen to the It's Been A Minute podcast from NPR. We are back and I'm now joined by NPR political reporter Jimena Bustillo and former New York prosecutor Tristan Snell. Hey there. Hey.

Hello. And Jimena, let's start with Friday with Hope Hicks. Why did the prosecutors call her? Well, Hope Hicks, just as a reminder to everyone, was a former press secretary for the 2016 Trump campaign and then later communications director and White House official during the Trump administration. She was in, she was out briefly, and then came back into

the administration a little bit towards the end. So she was someone that was close to Trump, particularly during the campaign days, when a lot of the things that we're talking about in this trial went down. In this trial, we're really focusing on kind of those months leading up to the 2016 election when these deals to cover up stories may have been made ahead of election day. And so the prosecution brought her up to talk about how this kind of stories, these stories and allegations of affairs could have affected the campaign and then how the campaign and administration responded once that news eventually did get out that there had been some payments made to a former

Playboy model and an adult film star in order to keep quiet. And I want to talk about those moments and why they matter, but I do think this is a moment that's worth talking about, you know, some real tension and drama in the courtroom. Hope Hicks was the rare aide that throughout the campaign, throughout much of the administration, was in Trump's inner circle. It was a small inner circle. The fact that somebody was able to stay there for a long period of time was notable. They did have a falling out when texts that Hicks sent about January 6 became public as part of the congressional investigation. They hadn't talked in more than two years. And Jimena, there was real tension in the courtroom. Hope Hicks made it clear

She did not want to be there. She was deeply uncomfortable testifying against him Yeah, she was and I think it's really important to note that she knew trump and the trump family even before he ran for president So that I think adds to the heaviness of this moment for her She started working for the trump organization under trump's daughter Ivanka Trump, you know, back even before he ran for president in the 2014, 2015 years. And when cross-examination began and she started kind of recounting those moments, she did break into tears and we had to take a five-minute break while she collected herself a little bit.

And I think it was just kind of the heaviness of that moment. And throughout her testimony, she didn't show animosity towards Trump or the Trump administration, even saying things as far as it was a great campaign. This was a great campaign that I worked on. I wouldn't have a job if, you know, without some of the practices that we employed. So it really was an interesting moment for her to testify against her former boss and Against someone whose company she worked for that she herself described operated as like a small family business Yeah now Tristan the main reason the prosecution called Hope Hicks was to talk about

The tension and the chaos and the concerns inside the presidential campaign in the immediate wake of that Washington Post story that exposed that Access Hollywood tape where he talked about grabbing women by the genitals. In the moment everyone thought the campaign was over, this seemed like a death blow. Why is that moment of panic inside Trump's 2016 campaign so important for their criminal case here?

The criminal case really hinges on what exactly was the motive or the incentive or the purpose behind the actions that were taken. The documents are going to be pretty clear that of course payments were made and that then Cohen was reimbursed for them via falsified invoices. The question is why? Falsifying documents is a misdemeanor. Falsifying documents to cover up another crime is a felony. So it really comes down to why did they do it? The context is king here and that's why so much hinges on the timing and the overall context of what was going on in October of 2016 just after the Access Hollywood tape and on the context of what was going on in October of 2016, just after the

Access Hollywood tape and on the eve of the election. Showing that panic is really, really key to the prosecution being able to say, this was for politics, this was for the campaign, this was not to hide it from Melania. The fact that Hope Hicks made it so clear she didn't want to be there made it clear that she still had warm feelings toward Trump and the Trump Organization and the Trump family. Is that the kind of thing that helped

the prosecution's case if she's still giving these key details that helped them make their case? Absolutely. The fact that she is still possibly at the very outer edges of Trump's orbit, but that she still maybe herself considers herself to be in Trump's orbit, still has some affinity or affection there, that definitely completely fallen out with Trump and that thereby is out to get him.

It will definitely raise the level of credibility with which the jury vests her statements. What did you think the defense was trying to do when they were cross-examining Hope Hicks on Friday? They're really trying to show distance between the story that we know we're going to get from Cohen and what other stories they can try to create or manufacture here regarding what Trump was doing. Namely, they're going to try to show, the defense is going to try to show that Cohen somehow acted alone, that he had gone rogue, that he had determined himself that this was a good idea for Trump's campaign, that Trump didn't direct him to

engage in the payment to Sturmey Daniels and that he had basically done this of his own volition and independently of anybody else. I don't really think that they succeeded in that. The fact that Hicks now is under oath on the record saying that she didn't really believe Trump telling her that is, I think, very compelling. That Hicks' opinion of Cohen is that he would not have done anything like that just because he felt like it was a good idea. He would have wanted to take credit for it and so forth and so on. I think that Hicks' testimony is going to be a buttress

supporting Cohen's upcoming testimony. So that was the most high profile witness this week coming at the end of the week. Jimena, who were the other key witnesses that we heard from? Well, the other main key witness was Keith Davidson and he was the former lawyer for Stormy Daniels the adult film star and Karen McDougall the former Playboy model both received payments from Cohen and the National Enquirer

magazine respectively and Davidson was the lawyer that negotiated these payments and these contracts in order to sell the rights to their stories so that they wouldn't get out. On the other half of this coin was the catch-and-kill scheme that was created between the National Enquirer, Cohen and Trump, to find these stories and buy those rights so that they wouldn't get out. And so we heard from Davidson about how these payments were negotiated. We looked at some of the contracts. And then we also looked at a lot of text messages between him, leadership at the National Inquirer. And he talked about conversations that he'd even had with Cohen related to these payments. Can you tell us about the the what have we done moment that that came up in the text messages

from election night 2016 when Trump has been elected president? Yeah, yeah. So Davidson says that he didn't do these deals to help Trump win, but he knew that their actions would benefit the campaign. And on election night 2016, he texted Dylan Howard, the editor of the National Inquirer that they were working with to close this payment deal, and he texted him, what have we done? And that was kind of a bit of an alluding to what have we done to help Trump win. That was a point on election night when it looked like Trump was winning, and Dillon Howard just texted back, oh my God. And so there are a couple of texts like that that do come out.

There was another one where Davidson jokes about waiting for his ambassadorship at the White House, and kind of things like that, that indicate that they knew that this would benefit the campaign in one way or another. Tristan, what to you were the most important angles that the prosecution focused on with Davidson? And same question with the cross-examination from the defense?

Aaron Ross Powell I think that the key takeaways from Davidson's testimony were just, it was additional foundation laying for what is to come with Cohen. It's again corroborating Cohen's account of all of this. Davidson was in direct contact with Cohen throughout this whole time period. That's really the key takeaway from all of this. I think it's actually good that we have not seen a lot of fireworks from witnesses like Davidson. I think that the less flashy these witnesses are, the more believable they're going to be. flashy these witnesses are the more believable they're going to be I

Don't really think that the cross-examination of Davidson really accounted for all that much They're trying to make some of these people out to be self-interested But I don't really think that's gonna resonate much with the jury I think the jury's common sense will kick in to say look this is not exactly a Savory business that we're finding out about here. Nobody looks terrific in any of these situations. This was all a rather shady set of transactions. And only by getting into this kind of set of witnesses and transactions will we actually get to the truth. So for them to point out that anybody is self-interested here

is sort of obvious and not particularly salient. Kind of a common theme across many of the people that are in front of here. Exactly, yeah, that's not really gonna help them. That's just pointing out the obvious. Go ahead, Jimena. I think with Davidson though, they did spend a lot of time trying to lay the groundwork

for some sort of argument that Davidson had his own sleazy motives bringing up past cases and past celebrity payouts that he's been involved with, like Charlie Sheen, Lindsay Lohan, Hulk Hogan, Tila Tequila was mentioned during this as well. What a list, what a list of B-list celebrities of old. Yeah. It really was a throwback right now for what this time period also looked like when he was working on these big celebrity cases to lay the groundwork that Davidson, particularly

as a lawyer, may had been looking to push that line of so-called extortion to try and get Trump to pay out the money. And I think that will eventually resurface in the defense case, kind of going to their point of Trump didn't do this for the election, he did this to protect his family. And there was this lawyer that was self-interested that wanted money from him. And so I think that came out for sure in this cross-examination. And we also saw two different sides of Emil Bovi. He's Trump's lawyer during the cross-examination for Davidson.

It was pretty aggressive. They both got sarcastic with each other at times, taunting each other saying, we don't want to play lawyer games. They're both lawyers, lawyers questioning lawyers on the stand is a very particular moment. Whereas earlier, as we talked about with Hope Hicks, you know, she had a very vulnerable moment and he was very gentle with her and made sure to not push her in a very aggressive way because that could turn off the jury.

Let's talk a little bit about Michael Cohen, who is the person at the nexus of this case, at the nexus of this alleged scheme, the person who made the payments to Stormy Daniels and then who got repaid by Trump over the next year or so in ways that the prosecution says was falsifying documents. This is the key thing here. He has not testified yet. He has loomed over this

case. And, Ximena, one of the things that you were saying when we were checking in throughout the week was, man, everybody hates Michael Cohen. Ximena Huygoczak Yeah, only bad notes all around, which, you know, I think is kind of interesting, even coming from the prosecution side, but no one is hiding the fact that Michael Cohen is not a likable character. Everyone has described him as self-interested, as aggressive, as someone that maybe wasn't great to work with. Even Hope Hicks herself, she said that he wouldn't do anything out of the kindness of his own heart. So everyone detailed some sort of interaction with him, a phone call that was very aggressive, full of foul language, that really just paints Michael Cohen as an aggressive person that you don't, you want to avoid talking to, you don't really want to be in deals with.

Tristan, it makes a lot of sense to me why the defense would try to trash and undermine him at every opportunity, but can you kind of explain a little why the prosecution seems to be preemptively doing this for the person who's their star witness? I think it's just not worth hiding, you know, the having all that information out there also shows that he is probably working under some broader direction According to the prosecution, you know to the point earlier with Hicks's testimony He wouldn't just do these things because he's kind. He does them because he has a job or because he's working under direction of someone else.

I think that that also just goes to show some level of consistency in, you know, we're not trying to go for this witness because they are, you know, great character, they have a lot of trustworthiness. You know, there are other things at play. And I think that's what the prosecution is trying to show. Tristan, what are ways that the prosecution teams kind of insulate against this charge? Because this is somebody who's been, you know, who's served jail time for stuff related to this, like you said, has credibility questions, and yet they're going to have to get key information from that. What are ways that you kind of before and after the fact of this testimony insulate a jury

from those attacks that are coming? Right, the term that a lot of lawyers will use in this situation is that you wanna take the sting out of whatever that attack is going to be. So this gets into why the prosecution has not been shy about eliciting testimony that other people in this case were not necessarily fond of Cohen. I think that overall they're not trying to hide, as Jimena was just saying, they're not trying to hide the fact that Cohen has had his own issues and so forth and so on.

But on the other hand, that really actually works in the prosecution's favor because they get to bring in the fact that Trump was in fact individual one and effectively just an unindicted cast character in Cohen's own indictment for which he ended up pleading guilty. In other words, Trump was clearly depicted in that federal prosecution of Cohen as the individual with whom Cohen worked to evade campaign finance laws. So it really actually, in lot of ways works for the prosecution to bring all of that up. For the defense to harp too much on Cohen's own criminal law issues is really a double-edged sword. Last thing I want to talk about that happened in the courtroom with the jury there before we shift to the the gag

order situation and how that affects both the trial and the campaign is this key recording that Michael Cohen made of a conversation with Donald Trump. Hemenna, tell us what was in that conversation, why it matters. So that was a recording that was brought up actually during one of the other witnesses. He was just a phone data analyst that

was authenticating the recording. And in that recording, you hear Michael Cohen tell Donald Trump that he needs to open up a company in order to handle their friend David. And David could be one of two people we're not sure if it's David Pecker, the CEO of the National Inquirer, or if it could be a reference to David Dennison, which is the pseudonym for Donald Trump on the contract payment with Stormy Daniels. But that particular recording was used by the prosecution to show that Trump was aware. He was connected. He can't have plausible deniability of knowing that Cohen was doing any of this or that these deals were being made. In that moment, we heard

Trump's voice on the recording. And so that made that direct connection. The defense tried to poke holes in how the recording was gathered, whether or not there was proper procedure when that was done. But overall, I mean, it still was audio that was played to the jury. Well, yeah. Tristan, is there anything you want to add on this before we shift gears? This audio recording is really exhibit A. Like, it's not literally going to be exhibit A because there's a lot of other exhibits in the case that come before that. But it's when we talk colloquially about like,'s exhibit a I think the audio recording is Really the key to this whole case in many ways because it strips away a lot of the he said he said she said of this

case and gets right down to the nub of Did Trump actually direct this? conduct I Want to talk about another big thing that happened this week of did Trump actually direct this conduct? I wanna talk about another big thing that happened this week. This was out of sight of the jury, but the week began with Judge Juan Roshon holding Trump in contempt for several statements he has made violating the gag order

that has been put in place surrounding this case. Jimena, tell us what happened. Well, to start the week, Trump faced a $9,000 penalty for nine posts that the prosecution had alleged had violated the gag order. Remember, this gag order is in place to prohibit him from speaking about potential witnesses, the jurors, court staff, or their families. And this is done as a safety measure.

And then there was another hearing on Thursday where four more statements were mentioned by the prosecution. So, okay, just for people who weren't following this as closely, which I think is a good chunk of our listeners, and that's a good thing, there was a first wave of another round of potential violations that the prosecution weighed and we are waiting to hear the judges ruling on that second wave. Right. And both times I think the defense is really focused on Trump's role as a presidential candidate as to why he should be able to not have this gag order and quote-unquote like defend himself from others you know

including Michael Cohen who are still tweeting about him or posting about him on social media who are making comments about him and they say that especially because he's a presidential candidate he should have the right to respond. Yeah. Tristan, you posted online that $9,000 is nothing to Trump. Do you think these penalties will increase? How high do you think they will go as this trial continues if Trump keeps violating the gag order? Judge Murchon's hands are tied a little bit on the monetary front because of New York State law on this. We're already up against the maximum size of penalty that you can get per contempt violation.

In my view, that law needs to be amended immediately, but that's a different story. Yet there are more violations that are being alleged here. I don't think any of these numbers are going to matter to Trump. That's almost the cost of doing business. If you're basically telling him oh it's gonna cost you 9,000 here and 4,000 there for you to get your message out and to go on the attack, he'll be happy to pay. So that's not really going to deter him at all. In the meantime, every time he does attack, he'll be happy to pay. So that's not really going to deter him at all. And in the meantime, every time he does this, he is engaging, in my view, in intimidation and tampering with witnesses and with the jurors.

Jared Slauson Even if Michael Cohen is out there attacking him and TikTok videos, because that's an argument that Murchon did seem a little sympathetic to. Jared Slauson At the end of the day, it's not really about Cohen. It's about all of the witnesses in general. And for him to be attacking some witnesses and praising others has a corrosive impact on the ability of any of these witnesses to feel like they can come forward and tell the truth.

I think it's heightening the degree to which people are going to be nervous and intimidated coming into that courtroom. I think it's probably at least part and parcel of why Hope Hicks was so emotional the other day. I think that it's increasing the hurdle over which people are going to have to leap in order to feel like they can come in and sit in that witness box and tell the truth.

Haman, the last thing I wanted to ask you is that this is a major news story, but it's happening out of sight in a lot of ways. There's no cameras in the courthouse. Most people are following this by, you know, listening to the reports you're filing, reading summaries from you and other reporters in the room, reading live blog coverage,

but I think there's a lot missing for people who aren't seeing this in person like you are. And I'm wondering, what is the most interesting thing that you saw in person this week that is sticking with you? You know, Trump came back into court the late half of this week after doing some campaign stops in the Midwest on Wednesday. And I think that definitely showed,

particularly in his attitude when speaking to cameras and reporters outside the courtroom, which I was one of them. And he did focus a little bit more on traditional campaign talking points that he's been going around with, you know, in addition to, you know, his concerns and complaints about the case, the trial, the judge. But I just thought that was kind of interesting. You know, I've been in that hallway pen situation before,

and he tends to focus just on his courtroom complaints. But this time, he was a lot more willing to broaden out, take questions about the jobs report, do things like that beyond just the courtroom talk. So it is a reminder that this is also the campaign for Donald Trump. And I would say that's definitely sticking with me. Yeah.

And Tristan, to wind things down, to you, looking forward to next week, what is the most important task for both the prosecution and the defense? The prosecution's main goal here, as it has been the first couple of weeks here, has been to lay the foundation under Michael Cohen, because at the end of the day, he is the key witness for all of this. The prosecution's job is to corroborate Michael Cohen and also just to generally paint the picture here that this was about politics, this was not about Melania. Now the defense's job is to undermine that

and to try to show that this was somehow a solo operation by Cohen. They could also be trying at some point here to bring in Melania, at least verbally, they're not they're certainly not going to have her testify, but we barely heard her name in the trial. So it really seems like they're sticking to the defense of this wasn't Trump, this was Cohen. I think we're going to continue to see them try to do that. However, I think that the recording of Trump and Cohen makes that job very difficult. At the end of the day, there's only so much cross-examination of witnesses and insinuation that you can do to counteract the really deep impact that a recording like that is going to have on the jury. I think the defense is

going to have their work cut out for them trying to paint this as something that Cohen did in a vacuum. Tristan Snell, and Menna Bastio, thanks to both of you. May the fourth be with you both. Thank you. Thank you. We'll be back next week with another episode of Trump's Trials, and make sure to check your feed throughout the next week. We'll have episodes when there is big news in the trial, and of course on Saturday we

will come back and give you the big picture look at what happened and what matters. Thanks to our supporters who hear the show sponsor free. If that's not you, it still could be. You can sign up at plus.npr.org or subscribe on our show page on Apple Podcasts. The show was produced by Lena Muhammad and Jordan Murray Smith and edited by Adam Rainey and Christian Def Kalamer. Our executive producers are Beth Donovan and Sammy Yenigan. Eric Marapotti is NPR's vice president of news programming. I'm Scott Detro. Thanks for listening to Trump's Trials from NPR. Our next presenter is the next presenter is the next presenter is the next presenter is the next presenter is the next presenter is the next presenter is the next presenter is the next presenter is the next presenter is the next presenter is the next presenter is the next presenter is the next presenter is the next

presenter is the next presenter is the next presenter is the next presenter is the next presenter is the next presenter is the next presenter is the next presenter is the next presenter is the next presenter is the next presenter is the next presenter is the next presenter is the next presenter is the next presenter is the next presenter is the next presenter is the next presenter is the next presenter is the next presenter is the next presenter is the next presenter is the next presenter is the next presenter is the next guns, reproductive rights, immigration, the economy, health care, and the wars overseas. On the Consider This podcast from NPR, we will unpack the debates on these issues and

what's at stake. You can listen to NPR's Consider This wherever you get your podcasts. Taylor Swift has dropped a new album. She is the biggest pop star in the world, and everything she does makes news. I gasped. I was like, oh my god, I've been there and you can identify with it. For a breakdown of Taylor Swift and her new album, The Tortured Poets Department, listen to the Pop Culture Happy Hour podcast from NPR. I'm Jesse Thorne. Why did Coloscola write a bonkers, extremely fictionalized play about

Mary Todd Lincoln? Well, you know, it was 2020 and we were all so isolated. I just started doing research, but the truth is, no, I just thought of it. We'll talk about that and more on Bullseye for MaximumFun.org and NPR.