Return to Transcripts main page
CNN Newsroom
CNN International: First Criminal Trial Of A Former President Underway; Judge Rules DA Cannot "Access Hollywood" Video To Jury But Can Read Transcript Of What Trump Said; Now: Judge & Attorneys Debating Evidence For Trump Trial. Aired 11a-12p ET
Aired April 15, 2024 - 11:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
[11:00:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
RAHEL SOLOMON, HOST, "CNN NEWSROOM": And welcome to a special show here in New York. We are following two major stories for you today. One, how will Israel respond to this weekend's attack by Iran? And what could any response mean for the wider region?
ERICA HILL, HOST, "CNN NEWSROOM": We begin, though, this hour outside a New York courthouse here in New York City where Donald Trump is making history as the first former President to stand trial on criminal charges.
SOLOMON: We are waiting for jury selection to get underway in New York on this historic day, Trump facing 34 felony counts of falsifying business records to hide the reimbursement of hush money payments. This trial goes back to the final days of the 2016 U.S. presidential election. That's when adult film star Stormy Daniels was about to go public with allegations that she had an affair with Donald Trump. Earlier, Trump spoke from inside the courthouse, saying that he was proud to be here. We will take a listen to that shortly. But, in the meantime, I want to toss it over to my colleague, Erica Hill, outside the courthouse.
HILL: Rahel, thank you. It's been a busy morning here, as you can imagine, lots of activity around the courthouse. Donald Trump did, of course, arrive, and court has been in session for just a little over an hour now. The judge walking through a lot of procedural moments.
Crime and Justice Reporter Katelyn Polantz joining us now from Washington with more. So, one of the first things that happened, Katelyn, this morning was the judge denied a motion that he recused himself. They're now going through what will and won't be allowed into evidence. And there are some interesting developments there in terms of what the jury will hear about.
KATELYN POLANTZ, CNN SENIOR CRIME AND JUSTICE REPORTER: Right. So, Erica, at the core of this case, the evidence we know that's going to be presented is about that payment made to Michael Cohen of $130,000 that he then passed to Stormy Daniels, the actress who says she had an affair with Donald Trump, or a one night stand with Donald Trump to keep her quiet before the 2016 election. So, that's the core of the case, the falsification of business records charges against Donald Trump.
But, there is a lot of things around the case, those core allegations that prosecutors hope to bring in to shield or to provide more information about how Donald Trump was trying to protect his public persona in the 2016 election. So, that includes ideas that prosecutors want to bring in where Trump was denying other affairs that he may have had, other accusations of sexual assaults that were being alleged to him, the discussions around the Access Hollywood tape, and his general approach to women in his sphere, including a woman named Karen McDougal, a model and actress, who also received $150,000 payment for her silence about an alleged affair.
And so, what is happening in court right now is that the judge is carving out how the details are going to be brought in before the jury around all of those other things. And they're going very specific. So, Karen McDougal, the model and actress, she is going to be able to testify, and she is going to be able to speak about an alleged affair with Donald Trump. What not is going -- what is not going to be able to be spoken about to the jury is the fact that this was occurring, allegedly, when Donald Trump's wife, Melania Trump, was pregnant. That is too prejudicial, the judge said.
Other things that are happening, that Access Hollywood tape, there is going to be testimony around how the campaign of Donald Trump responded to that, his motivations, the campaign's motivations, who picks the top campaign advisor, very likely to testify in this case, but the Access Hollywood tape itself is not going to be played for the jury. And there aren't going to be other sexual assault allegations against Donald Trump brought into this case, things like what was established in the E. Jean Carroll trial and others.
But, there is going to be some ability for the jury to hear about how Donald Trump was denying that he was having affairs, or having alleged assaults against other women on the campaign trail, all of this posturing about what he was doing to try and attract female voters at a time. That's part of the case, but not all of the other allegations. So, it gets quite complicated. They're working through it. Jury selection still has yet to begin.
HILL: Yeah. It really does get quite complicated. And speaking of the jury, before we were talking about -- before the judge, I should say, and the attorneys were talking about, what you just ran through for us, in terms of will and will not be allowed, in terms of what the jury will hear. In terms of the jury questionnaire, which is 42 questions, there was also a little bit back and forth on that.
[11:05:00]
So, two of the questions are going to be separated out, whether a person is unable to serve because of conflicts, things like child care, perhaps, or other travel things that may be coming up on their calendar. Separate -- that's a separate question now from whether they believe they wouldn't be able to serve in an impartial way. Why did those two get separated?
POLANTZ: Yeah. That's just to establish the record really fully. Donald Trump's lawyers wanted those two things to be split out. There is always in a trial circumstance, you bring the potential jurors before the judge. And they get to say things like, I have a health reason or a health condition that makes it impossible for me to sit in trial for six weeks, or I have some other very clear reason that they couldn't serve as jury. That's one reason to take someone out of the pool. But, the judge is also saying that they're going to remove jurors from this potential pool of who is on the jury if those jurors say they can't be impartial toward Donald Trump, that they can't look at the evidence fairly.
And so, they are going to be asking those questions separately, can you not for very obvious reasons, or can you not because you can't be fair toward Donald Trump. So, we're going to get a record of that as the jurors are asked the questions. But, you said 42 questions in that questionnaire that the court is using, a very extensive questionnaire. That's not going to be the end of questioning potential jurors. From that, then the defense team and prosecutors can ask all kinds of additional things to try and suss out whether these are people they want to have on the jury, or people that they want to use their strikes, where they just get to say, no, I have -- there are 10 people on each side that both sides can say their choice, I don't want that person to serve on the jury.
HILL: We all are watching for all of it. Katelyn, appreciate it. Thank you.
Joining the conversation for us now, Defense Attorney and former Federal Prosecutor, Shan Wu. Shan, always great to see you and to have your expertise. So, in terms of what we've seen so far, and even just picking up on the latest here in terms of what will and will not be allowed in for the jury to hear from some of these witnesses, does any of that surprise you so far?
SHAN WU, DEFENSE ATTORNEY, & FORMER FEDERAL PROSECUTOR: No. I think the point about separating the jury pool that Katelyn was just talking about, that's something that the DA's Office agreed to, and it's not really a big win for Trump. It may help him to be a bit better organized if they're going to appeal how many jurors kind of self- proclaim that they were biased and that the judge got rid of, but it's not a very big substantive win.
I thought it was very interesting that Merchan kind of nuanced the issue about McDougal saying that it would be too prejudicial to bring up the fact that Melania, Trump's wife, had been pregnant at that time. It's important for us to remember that standard of prejudicial isn't simply isn't prejudicial because most evidence is prejudicial to somebody. But, the judge balances whether the prejudice outweighs the probative value, and that's where Merchan came out on that. A very strong indication that he is being very balanced in these rulings, and that's a very good ruling for an appeal if there is a conviction because it shows that he is not letting in evidence that some people might say, oh, that simply smears up Trump's character and doesn't have that much evidentiary value.
HILL: When we look at this process, as it's going to play out over the next one to two weeks, the judge even said when he made that decision, as you said, the DA was in agreement about splitting these two questions, he said there won't be any other modifications. This is already the most exhaustive questionnaire this court has ever seen. One to two weeks is anticipated in terms of seating a jury. Do you expect this to be a fairly straightforward process, or do you see some potential for trying to further delay the process?
WU: I think there is a lot of potential that Trump's lawyers might try to make it a very chaotic process by fighting over every single aspect of the jurors' responses to the questions. I think that one to two- week time period actually is very realistic. The Manhattan DA's Office, it's a state prosecutor's office, they have a lot of day-to- day experience of getting through juries in oftentimes very sensationalistic or high-profile cases. I don't think this will be a huge challenge for them or for Judge Merchan to get through the pool.
I do expect Trump's lawyers to try to make it very laborious in part, maybe because they have to listen to a lot of Trump's directions on this, and they may be forced to make arguments that they wouldn't otherwise make about these issues. Usually what happens is if a juror has some sort of opinion that, for example, Trump's lawyers thinks is prejudicial, the lawyers will really try and follow up on that, try and tease out, well, what is it that you think about this? Don't just think that might call into question you're being able to be fair, pretty easy for the prosecution to rehabilitate the witness just by saying, I used to say, take a look at the defendant.
[11:10:00]
Are you telling the judge you can't follow their instructions? You already think they're guilty? That's the way you rehabilitate them. But, look for Trump's lawyers to try to make that much more of a mess.
HILL: All right. Well, as we watch for that, when you read through this questionnaire, I've had more than one attorney say to me that what really stands out to them is the question about where you get the majority of your information or your news. Some of these are news sites. Some are not news sites. Do you think that is the key question here on that questionnaire?
WU: I think that's a very helpful question for the lawyers who are going to use what's called their peremptory strikes, meaning the ones they can use at their discretion. I don't think the answer to that is going to give the judge much cause to do anything one way or the other. The judge is not going to say, well, just because you watch Fox, just because you watch MSNBC, that means you can't be fair in the case. The judge is really going to depend on how the jurors answer the questions. And if the juror says, I watch Fox but I can be fair in this case, the judge tends to give that a pretty strong deference.
But, the lawyers, of course, are going to have to be weighing. If I've got 25 people that watch Fox, I've got a limited number of discretionary strikes. There are other factors I'm going to have to use beyond just the news. But, that's I think, mostly a question that will be really useful for the lawyers in their discretionary strikes.
HILL: We'll be watching for all of it. Shan, always appreciate it. Thank you.
As we continue to follow the developments here in New York, we're also keeping a very close watch on Israel, where and when could Israel respond to a weakened attack by Iran, and could that response lead to a wider war? Rahel Solomon is back in just a moment with that.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
SOLOMON: Welcome back. So, how will Israel respond to this weekend's unprecedented attack by Iran with fears of an all-out war breaking out in the region? Israel's war cabinet today met for a second time, passionately debating what's next. Now, members of that cabinet appear to agree that there needs to be a military response. But, there also appears to be a debate over when Israel should strike back. Benny Gantz, it's a key member of the group, is calling for quick action. But, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu reportedly wants to take some time before responding. Israel says that 99 percent of the projectiles were intercepted and destroyed in the weekend attack by Iran. A short time ago, U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken spoke on the conflict. Listen.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
ANTONY BLINKEN, U.S. SECRETARY OF STATE: We have been coordinating a diplomatic response to seek to prevent escalation. Strength and wisdom need to be at the same sides -- the different sides of the same coin.
[11:15:00]
I've been in close communication with counterparts in the region, and we will continue to do so in the hours and days ahead. We don't seek escalation, but we'll continue to support the defense of Israel and to protect our personnel in the region.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
SOLOMON: All right. Let's get out to CNN's Clarissa Ward, who joins us now from Tel Aviv. Clarissa, a government spokesperson for Israel said that Israel retains all of its options. What's the latest we're hearing about the latest response from Israel, if at all?
CLARISSA WARD, CNN CHIEF INTERNATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: So, Rahel, that war cabinet session that you mentioned went on for about three hours today. There was another one yesterday, also lasting three hours. But, we don't yet have an exact sense of what kind of a response we can expect Israel to mete out in retaliation for Iran's attack on Saturday night. We know that there has been a lot of pressure coming internationally, from Israel's allies in the West, and from the White House, specifically, to not escalate this any further, to not risk this turning into an all-out regional conflagration.
At the same time, Israel has made it pretty clear in its conversations with its international allies that it does intend to respond. So, essentially, you're now looking at a number of different possibilities. There could be a very direct tit-for-tat response. So, you might see a direct attack from here in Israel onto Iranian military facilities inside Iran. You could see an attack, a sort of asymmetric attack, if you will, on Iran's or one of Iran's numerous proxies in the region. You could be looking at some kind of a cyberattack.
But, certainly, the speculation at this stage is that you will see some type of response. And there have been rumblings from the war cabinet that you're more likely to see or hear something in the near future, because there is a sense among some quarters that Israel has a limited window here, while they have more goodwill in the international community, after months of facing huge amounts of criticism for the handling of the war in Gaza. People now really not focused on Gaza, more focused on this broader regional issue of Iran. And so, there is a sense that some would say it is incumbent upon Israel to try to seize on that momentum, seize on that limited goodwill as long as it lasts, Rahel.
SOLOMON: Yeah. Clarissa, it's an interesting point, as you mentioned, the focus is not on Gaza today. Talk to me a little bit about the politics of the moment. This is a noun environment in which we're not talking about Rafah. We're not talking about Gaza. We're not talking about the humanitarian situation. Talk to me about the politics of this moment.
WARD: Well, and I think it's really important, Rahel, for people to remember, we're talking a lot about what the U.S. is telling Israel, what the UK, what the international community is saying. But, of course, there are the forces within Israel which will ultimately dictate a huge part of this decision. We've already heard some of those hardline ministers who make up Netanyahu's coalition, coming out and saying that there needs to be a big hit that it needs to reestablish deterrence. There are those in the Israeli population who agree with that. And so, essentially, the war cabinet is really balancing a lot of different considerations, a lot of interests, although I will say that those hardliners on the right who are part of that Netanyahu coalition are not part of the war cabinet itself.
So, it's a difficult moment for Israel, a lot of competing voices, and unclear as to exactly what approach they will take. Many have likened this to trying to thread a needle with so many different considerations at play, but certainly, regionally, a broader sense of heightened alert and tensions and awaiting to see what the next few hours might bring in terms of some potential announcement about what course of action Israel will ultimately take, Rahel.
SOLOMON: Yeah. We continue to watch. Clarissa Ward live for us there in Tel Aviv. Clarissa, thanks so much.
And Iran is calling the attack on Israel, quote "legitimate and responsible". An Iranian foreign military (SIC) spokesperson says that Iran is not looking to widen the conflict in the region but had a right to respond, after Israel bombed an Iranian diplomatic building in Syria. The missile strikes mark the first time that Iran has launched a direct attack on Israel.
Let's go to CNN's Fred Pleitgen, who has covered Iran for years, and joins me now from Berlin. Fred, talk to me a little bit about, there has been some speculation that this was perhaps more spectacle than meant for actual inflicting of damage. Talk to me a little bit about your sense of just the military victory for Israel and the lack thereof for Iran.
[11:20:00]
FREDERIK PLEITGEN, CNN SENIOR INTERNATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Well, I do think that the Iranians believe that the action that they took, the strikes that they conducted, were quite successful as far as what they were trying to achieve. It's quite interesting. First of all, I think you're absolutely right, that the Iranians did not mean to cause extensive damage within Israel. But, I do think that they meant to show a very clear message. And I think that the Iranians believe that that is exactly what they were able to do.
I mean, one of the things that we have to keep in mind is that while the Iranians launched dozens, more than 100 of their combat drones, suicide drones, as the Israelis call them, but also a lot of cruise missiles and even more ballistic missiles, they did give the U.S. and other countries in the region ample warning that all of this was coming. So, Israel was prepared. The United States was prepared. Israel was being aided by the U.S., by Jordan, by the UK and France also, to try and take all of these aerial vehicles and also the missiles down, and yet, the Iranians were able to penetrate fairly deep into Israeli airspace, and also, apparently, they succeeded in doing a couple of hits on an Israeli airbase, which they claim was the airbase from which the Israelis launched those strikes against the compound of Iran's embassy in Damascus.
So, from that vantage point, the Iranians do believe that they did manage to send their message at the same time because no one -- or one girl was hurt, but no one else was hurt in that attack, they believe that this is still very much a measured response and very much something that is within their rights. And it's really interesting to see, Rahel, because you mentioned it, the Foreign Ministry coming out today and once again saying it was a measured response. The Foreign Minister did it over the weekend, the Iranian president. You can see it from all quarters. They definitely have their messaging really on the same page.
But, of course, they also understand that now is that time where there could be a response by the Israelis. That's why the Iranians have already warned that if the Israelis do that or strike in a way that really hurts the Iranians, then the Iranians would hit back in an even harder fashion, Rahel.
SOLOMON: Yeah. Fred, it's interesting, speaking of messaging, any sense, based on your extensive history covering Iran, how this might be presented in terms of Iranian state media? How is this being viewed within Iran?
PLEITGEN: Well, they're trying to portray it as a big victory. It's quite interesting, because even as the strikes were still going on, there were celebrations by hardliners in the streets of Tehran, not a huge number of people, but certainly a few people who were saying that, look, this is punishment for Israel for conducting those raids or that air raid rate on the Iranian embassy compound in Damascus. At the same time, the messaging that you're getting from top Iranian officials is they clearly are showing that they have very big firepower at their disposal. But, they're also saying that they want to use that firepower responsibly, is the way that they put it.
One of the things that I was looking at this weekend, which I thought was quite interesting, was actually the Iranian Foreign Minister who talked to foreign ministers around the region, and time and again said that the safety and security of the countries in the region is very important to Iran, but that they also need to understand that if they house U.S. bases and the U.S. helps the Israelis in any sort of strike against the Iranians, that those countries would then be at risk as well. So, what the Iranians are saying is that they have big firepower. They don't want to use that firepower. But, certainly, you can see right now, from the messaging that you're seeing inside Iran and towards the West and also towards the region, that right now they are feeling fairly bold and fairly confident, Rahel.
SOLOMON: Yeah. Certainly a lot of messaging and certainly a lot of subtle subtext on both sides here. Fred Pleitgen live for us in Berlin. Fred, thanks so much.
And Jordan has issued a stern warning to Iran after the attack on Israel, it will intercept any drone or missile that violates its airspace. This after what appeared to be explosions in the sky over Amman early Sunday morning. It appears to be mid-air interceptions, although CNN cannot independently confirm that. Jordan's Foreign Minister telling our Becky Anderson that the conflict needs to be stopped at the source.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
AYMAN SAFADI, JORDANIAN FOREIGN MINISTER: I think what happened was a sign of how terrible things could be, how dangerous the situation could deteriorate into, unless we deal with the cause of all this tension, which is the Israeli aggression on Gaza and the continued absence of political horizons to solve the conflict as a result of Israeli --
BECKY ANDERSON, CNN HOST, CONNECT THE WORLD: Yeah.
SAFADI: -- policies.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
And the U.S. working to try to de-escalate tensions and keep the conflict from spiraling out of control. U.S. President Joe Biden spoke with Israeli leader Benjamin Netanyahu on Sunday, and Biden's stressed that the U.S. will continue to back Israel but will not participate in any direct military action against Iran. Meanwhile, a U.S. official tells CNN that Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin has asked his Israeli counterpart to notify Washington ahead of any potential response.
Let's get to CNN's Oren Liebermann, who joins us now from the Pentagon.
Oren, talk to us a little bit more about the U.S. response, Biden reportedly saying, look, take the wins.
[11:25:00]
Stop here. I mean, what more can you share with us.
OREN LIEBERMANN, CNN PENTAGON CORRESPONDENT: Absolutely. President Joe Biden, in speaking with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, pointed out the failure of the Iranian attack. Yes, there was minor damage from a few ballistic missiles that got through, but that is very minor damage in terms of the barrage that was launched, ballistic missiles, cruise missiles and drones, the vast majority intercepted en route either by U.S. forces or by other countries or by Israel's layered defense system itself.
So, Biden urging Netanyahu, look, this is a victory for you. Iran, their attack was unsuccessful. You are effectively or largely uninjured and unscathed in this attack. This is a win, trying to at least head off the possibility of an Israeli response to this. But, at least from the public statements we're hearing from the Israeli government, a response, some sort of retaliation for this massive attack still very much a possibility, and that's what the U.S. is watching out for here. It's also worth noting, as you point out, according to a U.S. official, that Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin told his Israeli counterpart, Minister of Defense Yoav Gallant, asking for update and notification before Israel were to carry out any potential response to this Iranian attack.
From another level, you have also seen not only the U.S., but a lot of countries in Europe and around the world condemning Iran's attack on Israel for its scale, for its targeting, for essentially how massive this barrage was, and that's important, because that's a diplomatic victory for Israel right now in the international arena, when it needs it most. Before this, Israel was facing a tremendous amount of condemnation from the number of Palestinians killed in the war in Gaza. So, to have the world come out, essentially united and condemn Iran, that in and of itself is a diplomatic win for Israel. The question, Rahel, does it change Israel's thinking with the need for a response, or the potential for a response here?
It's also worth pointing out that Israel and Iran are not that close to carry out some sort of military operation over great distances. It requires the cooperation of at least somebody else in all likelihood, and the U.S. has made it clear they won't be part of that response.
SOLOMON: Yeah. Really fascinating, as we just continue to watch. All eyes are on that region. Oren Liebermann live for us at the Pentagon. Oren, thank you.
And we continue to watch any developments in the criminal trial against former U.S. President Donald Trump. Right now, proceedings are underway with Trump in the courtroom. After a short break, our panel looks at the political implications of this historic day. Stay with us.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[11:30:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
HILL: The first criminal trial of a former U.S. President now underway in New York. Trump is facing 34 felony counts of falsifying business records to hide the reimbursement of hush money payments. This was in the lead up to the 2016 election. Earlier, Donald Trump spoke from inside the courthouse, saying he is proud to be here. Take a listen.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DONALD TRUMP (R), FORMER U.S. PRESIDENT AND 2024 PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: Again, it's a case that should have never been brought. It's an assault on America. And that's why I'm very proud to be here. This is an assault on our country.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HILL: CNN's Senior Crime and Justice Reporter Katelyn Polantz joins us now from Washington, D.C. And Katelyn, I know you've been following along with our teams in the courthouse there as we're getting these developments coming out. Donald Trump making those comments just before he went. And important to note, though, we won't be seeing or hearing from him in the courtroom because there won't be cameras there. So, we'll hear before and after, likely, Katelyn.
POLANTZ: That's right. But, we are getting a feed from our reporters who are in the courtroom right now. The court is currently in a short break. And what is happening now is the discussion about Donald Trump's use of social media. There appears to be two parts of this discussion taking place with the judge right now before jury selection commences. It still hasn't started yet. They're still working out the details of exactly what is going to be able to be said and presented to those jurors.
But, the discussion around Trump's social media, it's about, will posts from Donald Trump's Twitter feed years ago about Michael Cohen, will those sorts of things be able to be shown to the jury? They're working out a lot of those sorts of details. Can this be shown? Can that be shown? Can this be asked? Can that be asked? And then, separately, there is going to be a discussion about Donald Trump's adherence to the gag order in this case, his prohibition from attacking specific line prosecutors, lower level court staff and witnesses in this case. That is something that the court has ordered to prevent harassment and intimidation of potential witnesses here.
But, the prosecutors are raising some recent Trump's -- Truth Social posts from Donald Trump to the judge, saying that they think Donald Trump may have been in violation in recent days. We still are waiting to see exactly what sort of conversation comes next with the judge about recent Trump Truth Social posts. But, he has been quite unhappy about this gag order in this case. What Donald Trump posted around 7 a.m. today before heading over to the courthouse was this. "I want my VOICE back. This Crooked Judge has GAGGED me. Unconstitutional. The other side can talk about me, but I am not allowed to talk about them. Rigged Trial." I will point out, Erica, though, that there has been gag orders placed
on Donald Trump in several of his criminal proceedings and also lawsuit proceedings in court. And appeals courts have looked at these and have said, yes, it is constitutional to limit Donald Trump's speech in specific ways to protect the integrity of these trials.
HILL: So, we'll be watching as we follow those developments, but so interesting to see what the decision will be in terms of those questions. Katelyn, appreciate it.
As we look at the legal implications here, there are, of course, questions as well about the political impact of this moment in American history. Donald Trump is, of course, the presumptive Republican presidential nominee. He could be back in the Oval Office next year. Current national polling, though, says no clear leader here between Donald Trump and President Joe Biden. You just saw -- we see Donald Trump here coming back into court. As Katelyn had noted, there was a 10 to 15-minute recess, while the judge dealt with some of those questions. So, Donald Trump making his way back into court now.
CNN Political Commentator and Democratic Strategist, Maria Cardona, and Republican Strategist Rina Shah, both joining me now. Good to have both of you with me. So, there has been a fair amount of polling about whether a conviction on a criminal count could impact voters' view of Donald Trump. Across the board, we're seeing is not really at the end of the day.
Rina, the former President, as Katelyn just noted, even as early as this morning, has used this opportunity to rail against the trial what he sees is rigged, what he sees is a justice system coming after him that he paints as unfair. Does anything that could happen in this courtroom, do you think that for those who are still undecided, how much of an impact could it has?
RINA SHAH, REPUBLICAN STRATEGIST: Well, one thing is for sure, there is only one page in Donald Trump's playbook when it comes to how he messages to the greater public and it's that of victimhood. He has refused to let that page go. He sees it sometimes plays well. And look, we ought to take all the polls with a grain of salt, because this is a year in which it's not only this historical moment, so very astounding, this is a year in which the political winds can change at any moment.
[11:35:00]
Again, this is just one of four cases he faces, one of 90 plus criminal indictments across four jurisdictions. How will this one stick? It's going to be the daily question from here on out. Whatever comes out of this court definitely has the potential to sway the minds of these undecided voters, particularly independently minded ones in swing states. But, we have no sort of trail of evidence that could lead us to exactly how. So, therefore, we have to splice this for what this is. This case means two things. And I think about the students of the future, who will be reading the history books. This case is about the rule of law and it is about election interference. And that is just the plain facts here. However the political spin doctors try to put their very own spin on it, they cannot take away those two elements.
HILL: Maria, when you look at this, how much oxygen should Democrats, should the Biden campaign even be giving this moment and this trial?
MARIA CARDONA, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR, & DEMOCRATIC STRATEGIST: I don't really think they need to be focusing on saying anything at this point other than President Biden's allies and supporters, because, frankly, this screen what we're seeing this morning across all of our televisions and our phones and our computers is historical, and not in a good way, Erica. The polls that you are citing definitely say that all of these trials is not going to change or sway anything in terms of support from Donald Trump's base.
But, if you look at even CNN's own polling, it has showed that if there is a conviction in any of these trials, that will flip voters' decisions as to whether they would vote for him in November. So, this is very, very serious. And even the last New York Times/Siena poll said that the majority of voters said that this case, and frankly this is the weakest one that we're starting out with, is very serious.
And the way that you can tell that Trump and his team are incredibly afraid of this, very, very concerned about what this will mean politically, is that they have been on the airwaves for weeks now, and especially today, trying to diminish the importance of what this trial is. They're all saying, oh, that this only has to do with some business records. And by the way, this is not something that we should be focused on. And this shows that the Justice Department is rigged or our justice system is rigged against him. No, Erica. What this shows is that no one is above the law and that what this case is about is not just some silly business records.
It is about fraud and it is about a presidential candidate in 2016 trying to do everything he can to lie and deceive to the voters so that they would not find out what he did try to keep that from the voters, weeks before the election so that he could keep power. He could maintain -- he could gain and keep power, and frankly, it worked, because he won in 2016, because voters did not have the benefit of all of the information in terms of what Donald Trump did to fraud them and to lie to them and to deceive them into voting for him. And I think that is very serious going into the 2024 election.
HILL: Leading into this, Michael Cohen, of course, he was said to be one of the witnesses and has been out there promoting his role as a witness, perhaps for better or for worse.
Rina, when you look at what could be coming out of this, one of the things that he has said is that the full story isn't out there yet. There is much more to learn. Rina, what are you going to be watching for in the coming weeks in terms of that testimony?
SHAH: Well, I certainly am interested in the details because the details can hold some very important facts. Right? We already know that Michael Cohen has served time behind bars for doing Trump's bidding, which was to do this business fraud, this hush money payment, whatever we want to call it, and get into the legal intricacies. I think there are actually some more salacious details that we have not come to know that again shed light on the character of the man. And this is something that many Republicans push back on. They're like we will vote for him regardless of who he is as a person because of what his policies were.
And of course, in 2016, so many of us heard that Republican voters were still pinching their noses and voting for him because they wanted the justices, and they got the justices on the Supreme Court of the United States. But, beyond what was and what could be, we have to, again, look at the details. Here in the details lie the truth about today's Republican Party. They will have the back of Donald Trump because they believe that he is always able to get away with the impossible. And therefore, beating the Democrats is not only just a priority. They think it's very much the necessity for the moment that Joe Biden is vulnerable and that if they cannot put up Trump to say, you got to kick Joe Biden out, then that shows a deficiency on the part of the Republican Party. Now, I realize this is all a lot of inside baseball for folks.
[11:40:00]
But, what people need to be looking for here is, again, the character of the man and how he gets others to do his bidding and how that's been extrapolated across the Republican writ large. And it's terrible for the future of our representative democracy, again, overall.
HILL: Maria and Rina, really good to have both of you with us this morning. Thank you.
Still to come here, Israel considering just what type of action it will take in response to Iran's attack over the weekend. What U.S. President Joe Biden is now saying?
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
SOLOMON: Welcome back. Israel is vowing a response after Iran's attack over the weekend. The country's war cabinet has met to determine the size and the scale of a plan. This comes after an unprecedented Iranian attack, sending large-scale drones and missiles into Iran, or into Israel, I should say. It's estimated that Israel and its partners intercepted more than 300 projectiles. U.S. President Joe Biden vowing ongoing support of Israel, but also saying that the U.S. will not take part in any type of offensive action against Iran. Other countries have also urged restraint and any response.
Let's take a look at how oil markets are responding. They are actually lower, which is curious, Brent, the international benchmark, is off about half a percentage point, trading at about $89.32 a barrel, WTI, the U.S. benchmark, is off about half a percent or $84.54 a barrel.
Let's bring it now from Houston, the President of Lipow Oil Associates, to discuss this further, Andy Lipow. Andy, always good to see you. It's been a long time. So, glad to have you back on the program. Let me ask, so, Brent and WTI lower today. How do you explain the muted reaction?
ANDY LIPOW, PRESIDENT, LIPOW OIL ASSOCIATES: Well, good morning, Rahel, and thank you very much for having me back. I think the oil market is off this morning because we didn't see any damage to any oil supplies. There has not been any supply disruptions since Hamas attacked Israel back on October 7. However, we have seen oil prices rising over the last couple of weeks in anticipation of additional geopolitical tensions.
SOLOMON: Is there anything to make out of perhaps a feeling among traders that the response from Israel will be muted as well?
LIPOW: Well, it's really hard to tell at this point in time whether Israel wants a more robust show of force to counter what Iran did in attacking Israeli territory. I think for the oil market, the determination is, will Israel actually hit an oil producing or export facility that impacts on supplies while they go after a military target inside of Iran or elsewhere?
[11:45:00]
SOLOMON: What would, and obviously, we're speaking in hypotheticals here but sort of just following your example, what would an attack on an oil producing facility, what would that do to prices in terms of barrel prices?
LIPOW: Well, I think that if Israel attacked an export facility, we would see Brent crude oil prices rise $5 to $10 a barrel. The greatest fear in the oil market is that Iranian retaliation would result in the closure of the Strait of Hormuz, where nearly 20 percent of the world's oil supply transits every day, and that would result in a more substantial price increase of about $20 to $30 a barrel, with Brent hitting about $120 a barrel.
SOLOMON: Oh, wow, Andy, $120 a barrel. If I remember correctly, here in the U.S., that's about where oil prices were when we were over $5 a gallon. I mean, we were sort of I think $5.50 approaching. We're even seeing a forecast of $6. What would that mean for Americans at home if we were to see prices like that at the barrel? What would that mean in terms of gas prices?
LIPOW: Certainly, it's bad news for the consumer. We'd expect that gasoline prices would increase 75 cents a gallon up to $1 a gallon across the country. And of course, overseas, things would be much worse. As oil prices are rising, at the same time, there is continued strength in the U.S. dollar. So, many countries in Latin America, Africa and Southeast Asia, are seeing really a double dose of inflation.
SOLOMON: Andy, I mean, it's been six months since October 7. Just purely thinking about the impact on oil, would you say that the oil market has proven to be more resilient than many would have expected? We saw those attacks in the Red Sea. And yet again, six months on, I mean, Brent is trading at, I don't have it here, but $85, $89 a barrel, correct me if I'm wrong, but -- because I don't have it here. But, has the oil market proven more resilient than most would have expected?
LIPOW: Yes. Well, Brent is currently at $89 a barrel, and it has moved up about 20 percent since the beginning of this year, but the oil market has not experienced any supply disruption, and what it actually has been reacting to is the continued voluntary production cuts from OPEC Plus, which are occurring at the same time that world oil demand continues to increase, and the supply-demand balance has gotten tighter over the last few months.
SOLOMON: And talk to me a little bit about where we've seen some of this additional supply. I mean, obviously, we're a few years on from Russia's invasion of Ukraine. That was also expected to have quite a big impact as well. Where are we seeing more supply in terms of geographically?
LIPOW: Well, certainly the United States is leading the way with production at over 13 million barrels a day, making the U.S. the largest oil producer in the world. But now, we're getting additional production out of Guyana in South America, as well as from Brazil and Canada. And as a brand new pipeline comes on stream in Canada, that will enable them to increase their production several 100,000 barrels a day over the next few years.
SOLOMON: I see. Fascinating. And then, Andy, before I let you go, I know one thing that you do so well is you forecast. You don't just sort of look at what's happening, but you also sort of look down the road to sort of get a sense of where prices are going. What's on your radar right now? Obviously, we're moving into the summer months. We always see a bit of an increase there. But, what else is on your radar in terms of a wrench in the equation in terms of prices?
LIPOW: Well, of course, the biggest issue that is going to come up is the upcoming hurricane season in the Gulf of Mexico. With refiners already trying to run at capacity, any hurricane entering the Gulf could of course impact not only oil production, but the ability of those refiners to turn that oil into gasoline and diesel fuel. So, that's really my biggest concern as we go through the next several months.
SOLOMON: Yeah. That is fascinating. Right? Last summer, I believe it was, we had an issue with the refineries, and it wasn't really a supply issue. It was the refineries and that capacity issue and the -- just sort of the turning it out.
LIPOW: Well, exactly. And what we've seen over the last couple of years is oil demand has plateaued in the United States, and these refineries are getting older. Several levels have shut down over the course of the last three or four years, and many of them are transitioning to biofuels, specifically renewable diesel, to augment our supplies.
SOLOMON: Yeah. Andy Lipow, always great to have your insights and perspectives. Thanks for coming on today.
LIPOW: Thanks for having me.
SOLOMON: OK. Let's take a quick look and see how the markets are starting the week. In the U.S., at least the Dow is up. The Dow is up three tenths of a percent. The S&P up as well, about two tenths of a percent. The NASDAQ off but really fractionally. And taking a look across Europe and Asia, where the markets are closed, you can see a mixed reaction there as well, the FTSE 100 closing off about half a percent, let's call it.
[11:50:00]
The DAX and the CAC 40, both up about four tenths of a percent. Asian markets mixed as well.
All right. Coming up, Donald Trump is back in court and he is making history. Coming up, we're going to have a legal expert tell us what exactly is happening and what we can expect. We'll be right back.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
HILL: Donald Trump is back in a courtroom today. He, of course, is making history now as the first former President to stand trial on criminal charges. Jury selection is set to begin at some point today. Donald Trump fighting felony charges, 34 charges of falsifying business records in a cover-up days before the 2016 presidential election. Trump has pleaded not guilty.
For a closer look at what everyone may be following throughout the trial, former Federal Prosecutor Renato Mariotti joining me now live from Chicago. So, at this point, this is day one. We are expecting at some point today for jury selection to begin. But, before that can happen, there have been a number of motions. Of course, there was one motion for the judge to recuse himself, that the judge denied, and what's now happening in court is attorneys are going back and forth about what and will not be allowed.
What's interesting, Renato, is there is some back and forth right now about Michael Cohen, who, of course, is one of the witnesses in this trial. He has been promoting that fact, a fair amount recently. And there is a question now about how much can be brought into court about his former guilty plea to campaign finance violations and how much can come into play here. All of this is about his credibility. When you're looking at Michael Cohen as a witness, which should and should not be allowed in terms of establishing that credibility for this jury?
RENATO MARIOTTI, FORMER FEDERAL PROSECUTOR: I think most judges would give a very broad range to the defense to question Michael Cohen aggressively regarding his past statements that are false. In other words, Michael Cohen is a witness who has pled guilty to lying to Congress. He pled guilty to committing fraud, very, very relevant. And he has made a lot of other statements since that time, as you point out. He is promoting himself. He is also promoting his relationship with Trump and promoting himself to people who are critical of Trump.
So, I expect the judge to go as far as possible in permitting the defense to take shots at Cohen. I expect the judge will more carefully rein in what the prosecution says about Cohen's prior activities, because Trump and his conviction needs to be based on the evidence in this case, not the evidence that was put before a federal judge in a separate case. HILL: As once jury selection does begin, Donald Trump, of course, said that he doesn't -- feel that he can get a fair jury in Manhattan. There is a pretty extensive, 42 questions in this initial questionnaire for jurors, as they start to root them out. 100 jurors will be brought in at a time. One to two weeks is what we're told to seat a jury of 12 with six alternates. Do you think that's about right in terms of the timeframe?
MARIOTTI: Yeah. That sounds about right, unless the defense tries to drag the process out for -- in order to create more of a discussion about this in the press. I think that sounds about right.
[11:55:00]
I will also just say that, although I agree that this is not a favorable venue for Trump, the idea that people in any particular part of this country can't be fair, I think is an un-American thing to say. I don't think that's how we should look at our judicial system.
HILL: Renato, always appreciate your insight. Thanks for joining us.
MARIOTTI: Thank you.
HILL: And thanks for joining us this hour from New York. I'm Erica Hill. Stay tuned. Our continuing coverage of the first ever criminal trial of a former President will continue.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[12:00:00]
