Return to Transcripts main page
CNN Newsroom
CNN International: 50+ Dismissed Today From Jury Pool; Day One Of Trump's Hush Money Trial Concludes; Sources: Israel Delays Ground Operation In Rafah. Aired 4-5p ET
Aired April 15, 2024 - 16:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
[16:00:39]
ANNOUNCER: This is CNN Breaking News.
JULIA CHATTERLEY, CNN INTERNATIONAL HOST: It is 11:00 PM in Israel, 4:00 PM here in New York.
Hello and welcome. I am Julia Chatterley.
JIM SCIUTTO, CNN HOST: And I'm Jim Sciutto, outside Manhattan Criminal Courts where history is being made today, Donald Trump becoming too first former US president in this country's history to face a criminal trial. Of course, he is also a current candidate for president as well. We are going to have more on that later this hour.
CHATTERLEY: First though, I want to update you on the growing tension in Middle East as Israel's War Cabinet decides how to respond to Iran's unprecedented attack.
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is set discuss both military and diplomatic options with his Cabinet. No decisions were announced following their three-hour meeting. It is the second straight day the group has met at length.
Israel has already vowed to "exact a price" from Iran for its barrage of drone and missile strikes. Two Israeli officials say the War Cabinet is debating the timing and scope of that response.
The United States, Britain, and France, all cautioning Israel against escalation. US President Joe Biden told Netanyahu that the US won't participate in an offensive action against Iran.
Biden made his first public comment on the matter while meeting the Iraqi Prime Minister earlier.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
JOE BIDEN, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: As you know, Iran launched an unprecedented aerial attack against Israel and we mounted an unprecedented military effort to defend Israel.
Together with our partners, we defeated that attack. The United States is committed to Israel's security. We are committed
to a ceasefire that will bring the hostages home and preventing conflict from spreading beyond where it already has.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
CHATTERLEY: Clarissa ward is in Tel Aviv For us tonight.
Clarissa, great to have you with us.
Prime Minister Netanyahu and his Cabinet balancing all sorts of opposing forces. The far-right elements in the party that are demanding action, he has got pressure from allies like the United States saying, let this lie, and of course, pressure from the region not to escalate.
Just talk us through the outcome of a game that Cabinet meeting earlier today.
CLARISSA WARD, CNN CHIEF INTERNATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Well, this was the fourth time Julia that the Cabinet, the War Cabinet has held a session since Saturday night. It went on for about three hours and essentially, all we really know coming out of it is that there will be some kind of a response.
We heard again the IDF chief-of-staff telling Israeli soldiers at the Nevatim Air Force Base, which came under attack on Saturday night, that there will be a response, but he also said that it will happen at a time of our choosing.
Now, obviously, there is a lot of competing pressures at play as you alluded to, there, the US and Israel's western allies and allies in the region really the urging caution, urging Israel not to escalate. Then you have the internal political pressures, particularly from hardline right-wing elements of Netanyahu's coalition who have been saying that Israel needs to reinstate a deterrent, that they need to hit Iran hard.
So now, it is really just a case of determining how to thread that needle, if you will, how to find that sweet spot, that Goldilocks spot that hits all of the various competing demands that Israel's leadership finds itself contending with.
There are speculations, of course, that there could be a more obvious straightforward tit-for-tat hitting an Iranian military facility. There is also the possibility of an asymmetric attack targeting one of Iran's many proxies in the region. There could be a cyberattack.
So there is any number of different options available, but what we don't yet know is which option Israel will pursue and what the timeline would be.
There has been a sense that Israel wants to seize on the momentum of the moment, but then we have also heard Israel's leadership talking about the importance of building a sort of regional coalition. And I think there is also a sense that they don't want to squander the fact that for the first time in many months, there is some goodwill on their side.
So taking their time with that decision and in the meantime, the entire region bracing itself to see what the outcome will be and what the net next steps will be -- Julia.
[16:05:02]
CHATTERLEY: And then a very basic level of the danger that is, there is some kind of military response from Israel, the Iranians have problems to a further response in response, so where does this end?
The diplomatic response, interesting, Clarissa.
Because the message to Israel has been certainly from strategic allies like the United States, we won't back you in some form of military response to this response from Iran.
In terms of a diplomatic response, however, would it perhaps be easier to get allies like France, the United States, the United Kingdom, onboard with some kind of coordinated action given that doing nothing here normalizes what was a dramatic aerial assault from Iran, however unsuccessful.
WARD: I think it is entirely possible that Israel will pursue a kind of dual process that there will be a military component, but also a diplomatic component that they will try to build some kind of consensus or coalition, not just with those allies that you mentioned, but potentially others in the region as well to try to further isolate Iran.
Because for Israel at the moment, there is a sense that this has been a lifeline for them. They had been facing months of blistering criticism for their handling of the war in Gaza, the hostage ceasefire talks, all but at a dead end and this really gives Israel a chance to kind of reframe the narrative and reframe the conversation around this conflict.
So whatever we see, I think one can anticipate that there will be a diplomatic component towards it, too, though what the military pieces will of course, determine how popular, how effective that diplomatic component will be -- Julia.
CHATTERLEY: A vital point, Clarissa Ward in Tel Aviv for us tonight. Thank you.
Now, nations across the Middle East, too, also pushing for de- escalation. The Iraqi Prime Minister and Saudi Crown Prince discussed ways to stop the conflict from expanding further.
Egypt's foreign minister expressed the need for restraint during calls with his Israeli and Iranian counterparts. Jordan's foreign minister meanwhile says Prime Minister Netanyahu was using this situation to distract from the war in Gaza.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) AYMAN SAFADI, JORDANIAN PRIME MINISTER: Look, the Israeli Prime
Minister have always wanted to invoke some sort of confrontation with Iran. Now, as the international pressure on Israel to stop the aggression on Gaza continues, invoking a fight with Iran is something that we believe he thinks could dilute that pressure and could take attention away from Gaza and focus on this new confrontation.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
CHATTERLEY: Gary Grappo is a former deputy chief of mission at the US embassy in Saudi Arabia, as well as former US ambassador to Amman and he joins us now from Denver.
Ambassador, good to have you with us.
What response -- and I appreciate, it is all speculation at this stage -- are you expecting from Israel, be it perhaps a military route, be it a diplomatic route or both.
GARY GRAPPO, FORMER DEPUTY CHIEF OF MISSION AT THE US EMBASSY IN SAUDI ARABIA: First of all, it is a pleasure to be with you, and I think the Israelis are going to have to study very, very carefully how they respond to this.
It is 100 percent certain in my view that there will definitely be a response. The question is will they respond militarily, and if so, how soon?
It would be prudent for Israeli leadership to keep in mind the guidance that Abraham Lincoln gave his Cabinet in the midst of the Civil War, one war at a time, and at the moment, the Israelis are deeply engaged in this war against Hamas.
In Gaza, they need to finish that work. They enjoy the support of the United States. Of course. They also need to address the mounting humanitarian crisis in Gaza. But nevertheless, probably the best way to undercut Iran and the work of its proxies in the region is to neutralize Hamas.
It has other tools at its disposal, you and your journalists in Jerusalem mentioned there is cyber, there is also intelligence, and it really calls for, I think at this point a concerted diplomatic effort particularly given the support that Israel apparently enjoyed in responding to this missile barrage last Saturday from Iran.
CHATTERLEY: We saw key allies come to their defenses. Clarissa and I, we were discussing there, Jordan, the UK, France obviously the United States.
How powerful is that and court of public opinion, perhaps, marginally swaying in favor of Israel at this moment versus Iran, despite the tragedy that we've seen in Gaza. How do they capitalize on that moment? Because I think all of these allies have said, look, if you respond in some form of military manner at this moment, we are not going to back you in the same way that we did defending you. GRAPPO: Well, Israel clearly has to satisfy, first of all, the people
of Gaza, but more broadly, the international community that is seriously attempting to address the humanitarian crisis in Gaza and it cannot take the tie off of that, nor can it take a tie off the ongoing battle against Hamas, particularly in the southern part of Gaza.
[16:10:14]
But this is a unique moment in the midst of this more, a war when, as you mentioned, they were suffering tremendous criticism from the international community, including its closest ally, the United States. What are they going to do about that? They've moved the needle diplomatically, worldwide closer toward Israel. There are ways to capitalize on that and it will want to call on its demonstrated allies to help it do that.
I think it is also important to note that there were other allies in the region, most not mentioned, but Arab who probably shared valuable intelligence information, radar information with the Israelis or with the Americans in order to make more effective the Israeli response.
So they have got people on their side and the question is, how can they mount a major effort to bring them more closely in alignment with Israel and the united states in terms of not only the confrontation it faces with Iran, but also the conflict in Gaza.
CHATTERLEY: I mean, you raised the question of how. I think the point that you're making is that no one in the region, they were all intelligence sharing or for the most part, because no one wanted to see anything dramatic come of this attack and a significant loss of life.
So people were all trying to avoid some kind of escalation here. The question, Ambassador, to your point is how do you take it further from here and ensure that there isn't further escalation.
GRAPPO: Well, if Israel does respond to militarily, it must bear in mind that the Iranian attack did not result in a single Israeli death, and only very modest damage. And so if you're going to have commensurate response, the Israelis are going to have to consider that.
How are they going to go after the Iranians while still avoiding taking an Iranian life.
Ultimately. I think everyone in the world, most especially in the region, sees an Israeli response is tantamount to a very significant escalation and I am speaking of a direct response against Iranian territory in which case we move into a very murky and very dangerous world of war in the Middle East, which I think it is fair to say, pretty much everyone, including the Iranians, want to avoid.
CHATTERLEY: Ambassador, my understanding of weaponry and the defensive weaponry is not deep enough to understand the probabilities that were at play here. But at 99 percent success rate in taking these missiles and drones out was very fortunate it perhaps could have gone differently. Are we risk in some way of normalizing the attack that took place from Iranian soil on a sovereign state by just suggesting that the danger of responding in any form is that we have a bigger war?
It sort of normalizes what Iran is now saying is the new normal and perhaps shouldn't be.
GRAPPO: No. And that's probably exactly the discussion that is now taking place among the Israeli leadership. That they have to seize this position of detente vis-a-vis the threat from Iran ,and therefore, they have to demonstrate that any attack on the state of Israel will receive a response in kind.
And so they're going to have to balance a lot of the international pressure that they are facing against a military response, against their desire, their need to show detente vis-a-vis the Iranian threat.
CHATTERLEY: Yes, no easy answers.
Gary Grappo, former deputy chief of mission at the US embassy in Saudi Arabia, and former US ambassador to Amman.
Sir, thank you so much for that conversation.
And Jim, with that, I will hand it back over to you.
SCIUTTO: We are outside a Manhattan courthouse where on the 15th floor of the building, just behind me, a former US president is now on criminal trial.
Donald Trump's historic hush money trial underway with jury questioning, day one of the trial set to ended about 20 minutes from now when we do expect the former president to make public comments.
Just moments ago, more than half of the first batch of prospective jurors, they were sent packing. Why? They were asked a simple question, could they be fair and impartial? They answered, no.
Trump, the first former president ever to be tried in a criminal case. He is accused of falsifying business records in order to cover up hush money payments to the adult film star, Stormy Daniels.
[16:15:02]
At the core of the prosecutor's case is the argument that this was to deny that information from voters in effect interfering in the 2016 presidential election.
I am joined now by Paula Reid here in New York with me outside the courthouse, also, Katelyn Polantz in Washington.
And Paula, we've seen this first batch, just under a hundred jurors asked that first very basic question: Can you be impartial? Half said no.
Now, they are moving on to some more mundane questions about personal conflicts, et cetera. Where does that jury questioning stand right now?
PAULA REID, CNN SENIOR LEGAL AFFAIRS CORRESPONDENT: So they just came back from a break and they are focused on the folks who were left after that initial cut and having them go through this questionnaire where they answer questions like, where do you live? Where do you get your news? But also about their feelings about former President Trump while he is sitting right there.
I mean, Jim, this is of course a historic case. This is how it would happen with any defendant, but you just think of these potential jurors. The pressure to answer questions about former President Trump while he is sitting right there.
I want to go back to that first cut, the fact that over half of the potential jurors said they could not be impartial here. That statistic, that is something that the Trump team fought and won to have separated out. They didn't want all the jurors who were dismissed for cost to be lumped in to one big group.
They wanted that number about how many specifically were leaving because they couldn't be impartial. Why did they want that number? Because they want to preserve this issue for an eventual appeal.
They want to be able to, if there is a conviction appeal this case, and bring up as many issues as possible. And here, they would say, look we were losing half the potential jury pool because folks said they couldn't be impartial. That is why they would argue they wanted a change of venue, but that number was even higher than folks close to this case expected.
So now, we are watching closely to see these answers to the questionnaire and see if maybe they could get a juror or two seated because so far, we don't have a single person seated and they will repeat this process with a hundred, whittle it down until they get 12 jurors and six alternates.
So Jim, we could be here for a while.
SCIUTTO: Well, Paula, just one question there because I like I am sure a lot of people watching have been asked questions as a prospective juror, and I have been asked a question in a totally unrelated case, not political about whether I could be impartial to the defendant involved.
Is that fundamentally an unusual question or is it a standard question?
I am certainly not saying and asking that, that this is not an unusual case. Of course, the first time we've seen a former president and quite a polarizing one sit in the dock, in effect.
But when it comes to juror selection, is that a basic or unusual question?
REID: The issue of impartiality is really central to the whole jury selection, or what is called voir dire process, because they want to know if you have something in your background that would prevent you from being able to be fair in a case.
For example, if you had someone who had been killed in the line of duty, maybe potentially defense attorneys wouldn't want you sitting on a jury about someone who murdered a police officer, for example.
But here, I mean, this is so extraordinary because we are talking about the most famous man in the world and a case where most people or at least somewhat familiar with the facts.
So even though it is a common issue that you have a jury selection, here, it just takes on this heightened significance given who we are talking about.
SCIUTTO: Yes, no question.
Katelyn Polantz, help us through the math here. Close to a hundred perspective jurors today, they have already excused most of them over the coming days, as many as 500 potential jurors will be asked similar questions.
How long does it take to work through all of that math to get to that figure of 18 -- twelve jurors plus six alternates.
KATELYN POLANTZ, CNN CRIME AND JUSTICE SENIOR REPORTER: Yes, Jim, it takes however long its going to take to ask the questions that both sides need to ask to make sure that they can seat impartial and fair juries, and it will take as long as it takes to walk through all 500 if they need to.
We may not get there though. This is going in batches, so there will be about a hundred jurors called in at a time, we've got that batch of 96 in the courtroom today, cut that in half immediately, and then 18 of those people were brought into the jury box. That is what your jury is going to look like, 18 people, 12 jurors, plus six alternates.
And so they're going to question one by one, these people under the questionnaire that they have already established with the judge to tease out what these peoples backgrounds are, what their impartiality might be if they have an issue with that.
And then the judge is going to determine if he wants to see if either side, the prosecutors and the defense team, would like to strike any of those people without cause.
They have though the ability up to 10on each side to do that. But were getting a portrait already from our reporters in the courtroom of just what this jury looks like.
[16:20:00]
Everybody is a Manhattanite. We have a couple of people that have been questioned and not removed yet who are from Midtown, one person from the Upper West Side. And these really are relatively working professionals.
They are people who work in business development, economic development and ultimately at the end of the day, Trump's team is going to see if they can figure out whether they want these people.
I was told earlier that they are using a jury consultant for this process. And so we will have to wait and see how both sides react to the people that are questioned throughout this process.
SCIUTTO: Every side wants to game the jury as best they can, and by the way, a jury of your peers, that is a right. That is a defendant's right in our criminal court system.
Paula Reid here with me in New York, Katelyn Polantz in Washington, thanks so much to both of you.
And when we do return, I am going to be asking a team of legal experts, how attorneys can choose 12 people to hear this case, and how they may try to game it out to their advantage. That is coming up.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
SCIUTTO: The judge hearing Donald Trump's hush money trial in progress as we speak, has already dismissed about half of the potential jurors that have come in for vetting, for jury questioning. They could not get past the first and most important question, whether they could be fair and impartial in a trial. It is going to be a numbers game to find people who can.
Court officials expect to bring in up to potential 500 potential jurors a day. The pool is limited to people living here in Manhattan, we have a hundred people will be vetted at a time.
Ultimately, the goal, 12 jurors and six alternates. Candidates will be asked to respond to a questionnaire to weed out bias as well as any potential personal conflicts. The presiding judge said the key will be to find jurors who can put aside their feelings, render a decision based on the evidence and the law. That is what we to ask jurors in all criminal trials.
Joey Jackson, Ankush Khardori join me now.
Good to have you both here.
Joey Jackson, you've been involved in your share of jury trials?
This is a question asked of all potential jurors in any trial, can you be impartial in this case? This case is of course extremely unusual and that it has a highly public figure, one who is quite polarizing and one who happens to be a former US president, who is now running for president again.
[16:25:00]
How challenging is it going to be in your view to arrive at that eventual jury of 12 peers with six alternates that both the defense and the prosecutors and the judge are happy with?
JOEY JACKSON, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: Yes, Jim, that's a critical question, and so the answer is obviously, it is a challenge. The issue then becomes, is it one that can be overcome? I say yes.
I think what we are seeing is the system at work and that system being very effective in doing so, what do I mean? When you have a judge who gives the indication of hey, can you be fair? Is there any good faith basis or reason as to believe that you wouldn't be a juror for this case, right?
And people raise their hand and the judge says, okay, you're dismissed that's our process.
That is the judge taking members of a jury pool for their word. They can't be fair. And so then you exclude those jurors, so you go to another round.
Keep in mind, Jim, that there are what are called challenges for cause. That means that you're not only going to have people raise their hand and say they can't be fair, but in further questioning by counsel, you're going to have lawyers come to the determination that they're not for this jury.
You can then go to the judge and you can make an application that they be excused for cause in an unlimited way, meaning based upon certain things they said, Jim, they are not for this jury in the event they have a prejudice or bias, they are removed.
Then of course, you get to the peremptory challenges, which are limited to ten, in which the attorneys can excuse people for discretionary reasons. So I think built into the process is the reality that you are going to have juries that will say they're not fair and jurors who it will be discovered can't be fair.
So yes, it will be a challenge. I think it is a challenge that Manhattan does regularly that I did when I was a prosecutor there and as a defense attorney there, and I think ultimately the president will get a jury of his peers and we will get the show on and it will be heard on the merits.
SCIUTTO: To be clear, just Joey, as a follow there. You run out of those challenges, do you not? Those for the defense and for prosecutors are limited. You don't have an endless number of challenges, correct?
JACKSON: Yes. So that's absolutely correct, Jim.
So you have a total of ten and that is predicated upon the fact that it is an E-felony here, not to get it too much in the weeds, but the higher the felony, right, the more challenges you get. And when you run out of the challenges, you can no longer disqualify people for discretionary reasons, but to be clear, you always have the right to exclude people for cause, meaning they are biased, they are unfair.
Those who can continue if you develop enough information as to their bias to use, even though you've run out of the discretionary 10 challenges and then you have two more challenges for the alternate pool and there will be six alternates that are chosen for this jury. Quickly, Jim, the reasons for the alternates, of course, if a jury
gets sick, a juror doesn't show up, a juror gets off the case. You have an alternate and don't have to do the case all over again.
SCIUTTO: Ankush to Joey's point attempting to weed out bias is not exclusive to this case. That is part of the process of jury selection for any case.
I, for instance was called to jury duty a number of weeks ago. They asked me if I could be unbiased in a case that involved the Justice Department. This will come up if there is a police officer involved.
Of course in this case, though, you have perhaps one of the most famous men are the most famous man in America, quite a polarizing figure. But we should make the point should we not that this is part of the system and in a system that has questions and intended checks and balances to create a jury that can adjudicate the case fairly.
ANKUSH KHARDORI, SENIOR WRITER, POLITICO: Yes, no, that is an absolutely critical point and I completely agree with Joey that what is happening right now, it will be a little bit cumbersome and maybe the people at home, it will be a little tedious who want to see this move more quickly, but it is a process that's going to move forward and is going to result in a journal pretty being seated. I have a very high degree of confidence in that.
I will say that the one element of this that is a little unusual is the judge's decision to let people excuse themselves if they say that they are fair, they cannot be fair and impartial without any type of follow-up interview.
Usually, when people say that, maybe you experienced this in your own jury -- in your own jury duty when people say that, the judge will call them up and he will usually talk them out of it, right? Using that to persuade them like, yes, you really actually probably can be fair and impartial. Can you listen to me? Can you follow the evidence? Can you set aside any personal biases?
People usually can be brought around, 90 percent of the time. The judge is skipping that, and I think I understand why it will make the process more efficient. But that element of it is genuinely unusual.
SCIUTTO: I've experienced that myself. Let me ask you this, but before we go, Ankush, because there were a number of judgments, decisions made by the judge prior to jury selection beginning, which relate to evidence that will now be allowed to be brought up during the case.
What were the most significant of those decisions in your view?
KHARDORI: I think the judge's decision to sort of limit some of the evidence that the prosecution put into evidence pertaining to Karen McDougal and particularly the Access Hollywood tape. If I understand correctly, the jury will be allowed to hear or excuse me to learn the words that Trump said on that tape, but not be allowed to hear the actual audio is somewhat arbitrary distinction, but judges have to do that sort of thing when they're making these pre-trial decisions.
[16:30:19]
There's a lot that goes into the mix and they have to sort of draw these fine distinctions as best as they can.
I don't think anything like majorly changed the complexion of the case in terms of the rulings this morning.
SCIUTTO: Yes. Joey, before we go, your best guess is how long the jury selection process takes, in this case?
JACKSON: You know, Jim, it's hard to say because it's an unusual case. Generally, jury selection could wrap up in just a few days, right here. It's going to be dependent upon the pool they get, and the reason I say that, right, half the jury pool being dismissed out of 100. Let's see what happens with the next jury pool. But there will come a time where you have a jury pool that's there, they're asked questions, and if they're not dismissed peremptorily with those discretionary 10 challenges we talked about, and there's no basis to develop a cause challenge where they could be, say, hey, they're not fair, they're impaneled.
And so, I think the process shouldn't take so long, I know it's billed for one or two weeks, I'm going to say they'll have a jury trial and be ready by the end of the week. I'm going to go on record as saying that, Jim.
SCIUTTO: OK. We're going to hold you to that. We have it -- we have it on tape now. I'm looking at my watch here, because it's 4:30, that is the time we were told that these proceedings were intended to end for the day and we are expecting the former president to make public comments as he leaves the courtroom.
Ankush, perhaps we can expect him to do as he leaves what he did as he entered, which was to attack the process entirely. But I was reading earlier, and it struck me as notable, that Trump's lawyers will not be making that argument in the courtroom. Trump can say what he wants outside the courtroom as relates to the case, but they're not going to make an argument in the courtroom before jurors, that this is a fundamentally imbalanced, unfair prosecution. Why is that significant?
KHARDORI: Yes, I mean, look, that has kind of been Trump's sort of last line of defense in all of this, politically and legally, that he's been singled out by these prosecutors, it's law fair, it's unfair, and those arguments, frankly, are not persuasive to me at all. The judge actually knocked that argument out at the pretrial stage. Trump had argued that he was the subject of selective or vindictive prosecution.
All of that was thoroughly briefed. The judge rendered a decision saying, you have not offered up enough evidence to present a defense like this at trial. It's entirely speculative. So, to my mind, the judge did the entirely appropriate thing, which is to exclude purely political rhetoric from a legal proceeding. SCIUTTO: Understood, Joey Jackson, Ankush, as we wait for the possibility of hearing from the president -- the former president, we will, of course, bring back those comments live as they happen, but thanks to both of you for joining. Not going to be the first time I ask for your legal expertise on this case.
Other major story, of course, we're following. Iran says the matter with Israel, "can be deemed concluded" after its massive strikes on Israeli territory over the weekend. We're going to bring you the latest on the conflict right after this break.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
(END VIDEO CLIP)
[16:37:08]
SCIUTTO: This is just in to CNN. The first day of Donald Trump's hush money criminal trial is over. It's taking place on the 15th floor of the courthouse behind me. Court has been adjourned for the day, as we've been discussing today, was all about jury selection. That process expected to take several days as hundreds of potential jurors are considered by the court, questioned by defense, and prosecuting attorneys in succession every day to arrive at that magic number of 18. 12 jurors and six alternates.
Katelyn Polantz is in Washington. Give us a progress report on the jury selection process so far today.
POLANTZ: Well, Jim, there's been some progress here. This is a process. And the judge is going to be working in batches through the prospective jury pool of 500 people summoned to the courthouse in Manhattan. Today, they started with 100 in the room. They got that down to less than half of that pretty quickly because many of those people about half raised their hand and said they could not be fair and impartial.
And there were no further questions asked for those people. That was it. They left the courthouse. And so, now with about a third of that initial 100 left in the room, the judge is working through getting into the details here, asking them the questions on a set questionnaire that was established with the prosecutors and defense teams before this started. And so, so far, nine jurors have been questioned and not taken off the jury for some reason of cause.
They have answered that they can be fair and impartial toward Donald Trump as a criminal defendant. And there's been nothing else in their backgrounds that they've disclosed to the court that has led to the judge to say, there's no way that you can serve on this jury. You're too conflicted or you have too much of an issue in the coming weeks coming up. So, that process is going to continue tomorrow with more jurors being questioned like that.
At some point later, the defense of the prosecutors will be able to ask people on this -- in this perspective jury pool additional questions and take them out for no reason at all if they choose. Each size has 10 strikes, peremptory strikes as is typical in a case like this. And so, the process will continue on. Could be hours very likely will be days taking us through toward the end of the week.
And just now we're getting a little bit of word from our reporters in the courtroom, Jim. There's a little bit more that the judge is discussing just with the prosecutors and defense team before the day finally ends. But the jurors, they have left for the day and will be back tomorrow morning right around 9:30.
SCIUTTO: Yes.
SCIUTTO: And we should note that that question, can you be impartial is a standard question in many trials. And what's unusual about how the judges is considering their answers is that many trials the judge might try to convince or press that juror on exactly why he or she feels could not be impartial.
[16:40:09]
In this case, he's just taking the answer at face value and saying, OK, let's move on. It's an attempt to expedite the process. Katelyn Polantz, thanks so much. We do have a live picture there of the exit from that courthouse where Donald Trump has -- at least in the morning, he spoke to cameras answering questions, shouted at him possible he does the same on his way out. Julia, we'll continue to watch there for potential comments from the president.
But the news is, for the day, at least of a trial that's going to take many weeks. Today's proceedings have concluded.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DONALD TRUMP (R), FORMER U.S. PRESIDENT, 2024 PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: We had some amazing things happen today. As you know, my son is graduating from high school. It looks like the judge will not let me go to the graduation of my son who's worked very, very hard and he is a great student. He was very proud of the fact that he did so well and was looking forward for years to have graduation with his mother and father there, and it looks like the judge isn't going to allow me to escape this scam. It's a scam trial.
If you read all of the legal pundits, all of the legal scholars today, there's not one that I see that says this is a case that should be brought or tried. It's a scam. It's a political witch hunt. It continues, and it continues forever. And we're not going to be given a fair trial. It's a very, very sad thing. In addition, as you know, next Thursday or before the United States Supreme Court, an urgent hearing on immunity and this is something that we've been waiting for a long time. And the judge, of course, is not going to allow us.
These are very complex things and he's not going to allow us to go to that. He won't allow me to leave here for a half a day go to D.C. and go before the United States Supreme Court, because he thinks he's superior, I guess than the Supreme Court. And we got a real problem with this judge and we got a real problem with a lot of things having to deal with this trial, including the D.A. because you go right outside and people that are being mugged and killed all day long and he's sitting with about 10 or 12 prosecutors over nothing, over nothing. Over what people say -- over what people say shouldn't be a trial.
So, I just want to thank you very much but, you know, I can go to my son's graduation but then I can't go to the United States Supreme Court and I'm not in Georgia or Florida or North Carolina, campaigning. Like I should be. It's perfect for the radical left Democrats. That's exactly what they want. This is about the election interference. It's all it's about. Thank you very much.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: (INAUDIBLE)
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Are you (INAUDIBLE)
SCIUTTO: We've been listening to the former president there reacting to events today in the courtroom, as is often necessary. We need to fact check some of the things he said. He said the trial is a scam. We should note, as we noted earlier, his own lawyers are not making that argument during this trial, something the former president is saying to the public, his lawyers are not making that argument in court.
He referenced Supreme Court's own consideration of immunity. We should note that would not affect a state trial like this one, whatever the Supreme Court ultimately decides there. Our Katelyn Polantz is with us now. CNN political analyst Julian Zelizer as well. Katelyn, a -- not unusual comment from the former president as he leaves the courtroom today. Any other fact checks that struck you based on what he said there?
POLANTZ: Yes. There's always a couple pieces of nuance Donald Trump manages to leave out whenever he talks about what happened in court to the cameras outside the courtroom. And in this, we do know his lawyers asked the judge if he could attend the Supreme Court arguments next week in his presidential immunity argument in his January 6 federal criminal case. And the judge said, no, he doesn't have to be there. And that is correct.
He does not have to be there. It's highly atypical for a criminal defendant to even attend any appellate arguments about their case, whether it's at the Supreme Court or another court. So, Donald Trump wanting to be there and not here at his own criminal trial. That would be unusual. And so, the judge says he's a criminal defendant. He should be here. The other thing about this is that there was a small but important proceeding earlier today where Donald Trump spoke in court on the record multiple times answering yes that he understood a key thing.
[16:45:08]
If he were to voluntarily take himself out of the proceedings at this trial, so he could ask the judge, please excuse me, don't mandate that I'm sitting there in the courtroom. I want to go campaign. He could do that. But it would mean he wouldn't be able to participate in his defense or all of the pieces of his defense going forward. And he had to acknowledge that as part of the record. And so, you know, there have been judges that have looked at these cases and been quite clear, campaigning, politics, that's Donald Trump's day job.
His role as the criminal defendant is quite significant and important. And he is required to be here until he's not, until he asks the judge if he could be excused, which he has as an option that he does not want to take up because he appears to be quite keen on pointing out all of the things he's not able to do on the road outside of that courtroom in Manhattan.
SCIUTTO: Right. And we should note that at other proceedings, court proceedings, I should say, he has made a decision to appear when he was not required to appear in that his own choice. Of course, could have made a choice to be out on the campaign trial, campaign trial, rather, during those events. CNN Political Analyst Julian Zelizer with us as well today. Julian, your response to today's events. It's a remarkable moment in U.S. political history to have a former U.S. president and current candidate for president standing trial on criminal charges?
JULIAN ZELIZER, CNN POLITICAL ANALYST: Yes, and I would add one of many. So, this isn't the singular trial. There'll probably be more, and there are several cases going on as well as civil cases. So, all of that adds up to historic. It is going to be an integral part of the 2024 campaign. And I think the comments you heard at the end will capture exactly the narrative that the former president wants to emphasize, persecuted.
That could be the campaign mantra. But I think what will be very important is that prosecutors kind of bring back that this is actually about election interference, but his interference in terms of violating campaign finance laws.
SCIUTTO: Julian, the conventional wisdom is that for his supporters at least, this trial doesn't matter. That they're, in fact, for some of them, it only hardens their support for the former president. But there is some polling that questions that. And I spoke to a Republican, a former Republican congressman last week who made the point that when voters are reminded of the circumstances of this case, namely an extramural affair, money paid to keep that extramural affair quiet during the 2016 election, that that does have a political effect.
And I wonder, I mean, we're not going to know for sure until November when voters go to the polls. But what is your view?
ZELIZER: It could. I mean, if it's not simply the details of the case, but it's that word conviction, if that happens, and there is polling to indicate that could change some voters. I don't think it's going to have an overwhelming effect, to be honest, on Republican voters should have done fold that way. But again, this is an election where we're not talking about overwhelming number of voters.
We're talking about slivers of voters in swing states. And so potentially, I think those arguments, that conventional wisdom, might be on target. But we really don't know. And thus far, at least politically, he has withstood something that I don't think many other candidates in American history would have been able to withstand and end up where they are, namely the nomination to run again.
SCIUTTO: He mentioned there the upcoming consideration before the Supreme Court, Katelyn Polantz of this -- of his really endless immunity claims, as relates to his federal trials. We should note not to this state trial here. Can you remind viewers what the Supreme Court is considering and how that timeline will play out separate from this state criminal case?
POLANTZ: Well, that is Donald Trump's bid to get rid of the entirety of the criminal case against him related to January 6 in federal court, and potentially in state court in Georgia as well. Two cases he's facing as a criminal defended. What he's arguing there is that anything that he did or said while he was serving in the presidency should be protected and that he should not be able to face any charges by any prosecutors because of those things.
Obviously, there's quite a lot of what happened at the end of the Trump presidency related to the election, him spreading disinformation, him using the Justice Department or wanting to use the Justice Department to assist him, calling state officials in Georgia, and then ultimately wanting Mike Pence, the Vice President and Congress to help him and stop the transfer of power to Joe Biden who won the election.
[16:50:17]
The Supreme Court is going to look at that question of presidential immunity and either say this case can go to trial against Donald Trump. He can be charged for these crimes that the Justice Department has taken through a grand jury already or they might say there needs to be more proceedings around this more evidence gathered, more looks by the court or they can't have a case at all.
So, it is really a do or die moment in those January 6 prosecutions against Donald Trump next week when the Supreme Court hears the arguments.
SCIUTTO: Right. And if folks forget just how broad the immunity is that Donald Trump is claiming his lawyer argued before the federal court if I remember correctly that even if he were to order seal seem six to take out a political opponent he could not be prosecuted for that unless he was tried and convicted via an impeachment proceeding prior. This is quite a broad claim that he has here and that the Supreme Court is now considering.
Katelyn Polantz in Washington, CNN political analyst Julian Zelizer as well. Thanks so much for joining.
Coming up. Still this hour the world is on high alert as Israel ways its response to Iran's unprecedented missile and drone attack over the weekend. More on exactly what it's considering just ahead.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK) CHATTERLEY: Welcome back. The middle east on edges. Israel weighs its response to direct strikes from Iran. The Israeli war cabinet met earlier for this second straight day. It's reviewing both military and diplomatic options as well as calls from western allies and beyond to avoid escalation. Sources tell CNN that Israel has delayed its planned ground offensive in Rafah as it decides its response to Iran's unprecedented attack this weekend.
Israel's war cabinet convened Monday to consider both military and diplomatic options as I mentioned. Jeremy Diamond is in Tel Aviv for his now. Jeremy, what more do we know about the Israeli decision to delay that planned operation in Rafah? Was it timed in terms of perhaps telling us something about potential timing for our response to Iran's attack over the weekend or simply just a decision to make one less decision at a critical moment?
[16:55:16]
JEREMY DIAMOND, CNN WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: Well, Julia, I'm told that the Israeli military was set to begin dropping leaflets over parts of Rafah today ordering civilians to evacuate, which would effectively be the first step ahead of a planned Israeli ground offensive into that southernmost city of Gaza where more than one million Palestinians are currently sheltering.
Those plans were put on hold this weekend, amid Iran's attack on Israel. And as the Israeli war cabinet begins to mull a potential response. So, this ground offensive into Rafah certainly delayed for now, although Israeli officials tell me that they are still committed to carrying out that ground offensive, a ground defensive, which American officials have sought to dissuade Israel from carrying out both privately as well as publicly through very significant pressure.
Now, amid all of this, Israel's war cabinet today convened once again to discuss not that planned ground offensive into Rafah, but instead how Israel will respond to this unprecedented strike that Iran carried out over the weekend directed at Israeli soil, the first in history. I'm told that the Israeli war cabinet over the course of the last several days has been engaged in heated debate over exactly the scope of such an Israeli response as well as the timing with Benny Gantz, a key member of the war cabinet advocating for a much swifter response, whereas the Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu at least until today certainly pumping the brakes on making a decision.
But emerging from the war cabinet today, a meeting that lasted nearly three hours, Israeli officials refused to say whether or not a decision had been made. And I was told by one Israeli official that the sentiment was that a swifter response was likely in the offing. So, we don't know the timing of that response, but certainly the war cabinet is convinced that it must respond to this attack by Iran, how and when remains the question.
CHATTERLEY: And we'll continue to watch very closely. Jeremy Diamond there in Tel Aviv. Thank you for that. And that's it for this hour. I'm Julia Chatterley in New York. Thank you for joining us. "THE LEAD" with Jake Topper is up next. (COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[17:00:00]
