And OUTFRONT now, Ronan Farrow, contributing writer at The New Yorker. He's done extensive reporting on David Pecker. Am I and the Karen McDougal catch and kill deal. He's also the author of the book Catch and Kill Lies, Spies and Conspiracy to Protect Predators. And also a lawyer deeply sourced in all of what we're seeing right now. So, Ronan, when you're watching all this, I mean, you know as well better than anybody how David Pecker operated and how he operated to protect Trump specifically, which is what's at hand now. Have you learned anything from his testimony? Well, it's a strange experience for many of the reporters who advanced this story at the time. Because one of the things Pecker is now speaking to is that AMI at the time, the name of the owner of The National Enquirer did just lie when this was all coming to light. And he said in court today, you know, I've lied to protect myself and my company and to protect Donald Trump. So what we're getting isn't new revelations about how this scheme worked, how there was this apparent conspiracy to subvert the election by concealing information from voters. What we are getting is additional detail and confirmation after a whole lot of concealment. All right. So what are your sources, you know, in this trial and the prosecution? What are they what are they telling you right now? Well, certainly there's a feeling that Pecker has been a strong witness. There's also a lot of apprehension about some of the witnesses to come. I mean, Michael Cohen is at some point going to have to take the stand. And prosecutors are looking at positioning that midway through next month as of current conversations. And there's a mounting sense of anxiety, particularly over the course of this week, about how noisy Michael Cohen is and what a loose cannon Michael Cohen can be. And, you know, I have had plenty of contact with Michael Cohen over the years. I think that I understand and empathize with all the reasons he's in a difficult, stressful position right now. And, you know, to his credit, he did at a certain point this week after a lot of tense conversations between prosecutors and his legal team, finally announced, you know, I'm going to stop going on TV and talking about this. I'm going to stop going on my podcast and talking about this because he was just sort of spouting vulgarities all the time about Trump. He had started a fundraising campaign. These were all things that made prosecutors nervous about positioning him as a meaningful witness in this case. So as we obviously await that testimony, there was a ruling today that I know you think could matter for Trump, and this was the New York state top court overruling the Harvey Weinstein conviction state of New York. I mean, it was a bombshell just what had this morning's people saying, wow. All right. Now, you won a Pulitzer for your work. You exposed so many of these allegations stories that women had shared with you about what Harvey Weinstein did to them. But the New York top court today basically said that the lower court judgment is a serious mistake by allowing a lot of these women to testify when they weren't the ones, you know, actually as part of the trial. Right. So they sort of built a record of Harvey Weinstein's alleged behavior as if it were fact without proving it all in a court, you know, the sort. So you published a new piece right here. I hope everyone will read it. New piece in The New Yorker. What Harvey Weinstein's overturn conviction means for Donald Trump's trial. What does it mean? Well, a couple of things to understand. First of all, Harvey Weinstein is not going to be a free man anytime soon. He is serving a separate long sentence due to a conviction in California for a rape. That's not going to change anytime soon. Now, the fate of his trial in New York, this overturning and any potential subsequent retrial affects him less because of that than it affects the case law going forward about sex crimes in general. There was a dissent to this decision today from one of the judges. That was a sort of hue and cry where she said, you know, this is going to let people guilty of sex crimes off the hook. Right now, it is also consequential, really sexually exploit their power over women will reap the benefits exactly. Right. So there is a strong dissenting opinion on that. Now, it's also going to matter not only for sex crimes cases going forward, but for this ongoing Donald Trump hush payments trial because there is a commonality of the legal theories being applied. In both cases, prosecutors argued for and judges allowed in evidence of crimes other than of the ones being charged. So in the Trump case, that means all of these Army payments, Donald Trump is being charged for a payment from Michael Cohen to Stormy Daniels that was allegedly concealed where he talked about a lot of other payments except McDougal. Well, right. So so the payment from Amy to Karen McDougal and the payment from Amy to a doorman who was in possession of a rumor of a Trump lovechild. Those are not the actions that Donald Trump is being charged for in this case. But the judge has let in all this testimony from David Pecker and others about those transactions to establish the intent and the alleged conspiracy here and those are stated exceptions in New York case law to the general rule that you not let in evidence of uncharged crimes. Nevertheless, I think that the Weinstein verdict being overturned because of the letting in of that kind of more attenuated evidence just illustrates how fraught it is any time a court lets that in. And certainly Donald Trump is going to capitalize on every opportunity he has to say, hey, this was a prejudiced prosecution. They let in too much. They were overbroad for for a grounds for appeal and overturning. All right, Ronan, thank you very much. Great to see you. Great to be here. Women who accused Harvey Weinstein of horrible things, they are speaking out, calling the news of Weinstein's new trial in New York disheartening. And profoundly unjust. Ashley Judd, one of the first woman to publicly accused Weinstein of sexual harassment, says learning his conviction was overturned is, quote, an act of institutional betrayal. Now, the infamous Hollywood producer who was found guilty of two sex crimes four years ago in New York on Thursday, the New York Court of Appeals overturned that conviction and ordered a new trial. Let's get it over. CNN's Jean Casarez. She has much more on this for us. So let's start with why was this conviction overturned? Well, you know, Kate, first, let's say the court did not find him innocent at all. And that is an important thing here. It's what the judge allowed in the trial. Prosecutors asked for many things. Judge allowed those things to come in the trial. And what the highest court of New York said is, here's what it did, that it stripped a defendant of a right. He has a presumption of innocence until the case goes to the jury. And that was gone. The appellate court said before it went to the jury and also right to a fair trial and is due process rights were violated. No one. They said Muller, no witnesses are allowed in New York. Now, all across the country, they're called prior bad act witnesses. And in Weinstein's case, four of them took the stand. It was very difficult for them to testify as to sexual crimes they say Weinstein committed against them. Now, this did not go toward the charges. It was mentioned in the indictment, but prosecutors got those four in. And it is appropriate to show certain things like a pattern of conduct. But the appellate court said you had three accusers, then judge, you allowed four more to come in. And there were so many that there was no presumption of innocence. When the jury got that case. He was guilty already. That was number one. Number two, if Weinstein had decided to take the stand, the judge ruled that not only would he be cross-examined on all four of those, but he would also be cross-examined on things he did in the workplace, throwing food in somebody's face, bullying employees who had said no relevance. And because of that, the jury was denied to hear his testimony because he stayed silent, because he wasn't going to take the stand under those circumstances. And the difficult thing is, though, that these women that had to take the stand and they gave their stories. Mimi HaleyI, Gloria Allred represented the one victim. There was a conviction and she would have to take the stand again. And Gloria Allred said in a statement that she is she will try to take the stand again if there is a retrial. But obviously, this is difficult and it's a shock to so many. But he's not innocent. The court said the blame is really on the judge allowing too much into the trial. Now you're seeing some of Gloria Allred statement there and what she's saying about what this does. Jean, it's great to see you. Thank you very much for that, sir. All right. Joining me now to discuss is defense attorney Misty Marris. First off, you watch this trial extremely closely, all the details of this trial. Were you surprised that the public was surprised by this? Were you surprised by this? So having watched this trial and being a New York practitioner, the prior bad act evidence and when that can come in, it is a very, very narrow set of circumstances that that can come into the trial. So while I had a feeling he was going to get convicted, I think many lawyers who were watching this had the same impression that they there would be a pretty good appellate argument for Harvey Weinstein in New York. So not a big surprise to you because of all of the issues that were let into and the witnesses led into this case. I do want to ask you if there is another appellate case that you can kind of compare this to the closest is Bill Cosby. Everybody was shocked when that case got overturned. But it's the same principle, basically prior bad act evidence, meaning uncharged crimes, things that don't have to do with the case in principle can only come in if it's to show a propensity and modus operandi relating to that conduct. It can't come into impugn the defendant's character. And so it's a fine line as to whether or not that evidence can actually come in. Witnesses can testify. And in some of these cases. Bill Cosby and now Harvey Weinstein. Appellate courts have found the judges went too far. They let too much in. And ultimately, that impacted the rights of the defendant. Keep in mind, Sara, it's not just Bill Cosby, Harvey Weinstein. It sets a standard for any other criminal defendant. And that's why the appellate courts are very strict about when this type of evidence can come into the courtroom.
