Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Newsroom

Jury Selection Begins In Trump's Historic Criminal Trial; World Leaders Urge Restraint As Israel Weighs Response to Iran. Aired 3-4p ET

Aired April 15, 2024 - 15:00   ET

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.

[15:00:42]

JIM SCIUTTO, CNN HOST: Welcome. I'm Jim Sciutto in New York, outside Manhattan courthouse where right now former U.S. President Donald Trump, current GOP nominee for president in 2024, is sitting in a courtroom as the first jurors are brought in for questioning, some 100 this afternoon, perhaps several hundred over the next several days as defense attorneys and prosecutors asked them questions to ultimately arrive at the pool of 18, 12 jurors, six alternates, who will sit in judgment of Trump on multiple counts.

This is the first time a U.S. president has sat in a criminal trial.

Our Katelyn Polantz has been covering the events this morning from Washington. And before that pool of 96 potential jurors walked into the courtroom. There are a number of questions before the judge, a final chance to delay the trial, questions about the exact questions that will be asked of jurors during the next several days.

Katelyn, tell us what the most significant decisions were this morning as jury selection gets underway.

KATELYN POLANTZ, CNN SENIOR CRIME & JUSTICE REPORTER: Well, most of what the judge was doing this morning, Jim, was sorting out exactly how and what can be said before these jurors whenever there are witnesses on the stand and evidence presented. So, the judge was working out specific details what could be discussed about alleged affairs that Donald Trump had outside of Stormy Daniels? And that payment made to her that forms the core of this business falsification of records case.

There are alleged affairs that will be able to be discussed, alleged sexual assaults, though, that came out after the Access Hollywood tape in 2016 when Trump is running for president. That's not going to be able to be discussed. And that "Access Hollywood" tape itself, that's not going to be played to the jury in this trial.

But there's a general idea that the prosecutors want to be able to put forth and bring out in their witness testimony when they put people like campaign staffer Hope Hicks on the stand, when Karen McDougal, someone else who alleged an affair with Donald Trump and was silenced from telling her story -- when those people are testifying, what prosecutors want to be able to do is show why Donald Trump may have wanted to silence them stories that could have been damaging to him and ultimately, Stormy Daniels whenever he was facing voters in 2016 teens.

So a lot of that is what was being worked out this morning. Now though, we are into the meat of this, the judge has sworn in these 96 potential jurors. The first batch of that jury pool, about 25 minutes ago and has told them that they alone are the judges fact in this case, they are the people who will decide whether the former president of the United States is guilty or not guilty of the charges that he faces in this business records case, and they're going to start by asking those jurors questions to get more of a sense of who they are to make sure they can be fair and impartial.

SCIUTTO: Well, we're learning just in the last few minutes, the judge has begun to ask those potential jurors are very basic question, and that is, can they be fair in their potential judgment of the former president? And as they answer, he is dismissing some as they move through one by one of just this first group of some 96 jurors. We expect over the next several days, perhaps as many as 500 potential jurors to be considered to be questioned per day.

I do, Katelyn, before I let you let you go, want to get to a key decision this morning from that judge, which you referred to, which is allowing a meeting with the "National Enquirer" -- accounts of that meeting to be included in this trial because that gets to a broader question that prosecutors are attempting to establish. And that is that this was a pattern, that this was a candidate for president and Donald Trump in 2016, who is trying with the aid of the National Enquirer and others to kill stories in effect, which might have impacted voters decisions in the 2016 election.

That is central to the prosecutors' case.

[15:05:00]

POLANTZ: Yes, so Stormy Daniels. She was paid through Michael Cohen, Donald Trump's lawyer, $130,000 to keep her story quiet. But there's another piece of this that prosecutors want to have shown to the jury, and that was what the "National Enquirer" was being used to do.

There is a man, David Pecker, who's the former chairman of American Media Incorporated, the publisher of the "National Enquirer", he is someone who has been given immunity in this case. He had an agreement with prosecutors. He's very likely to testify and he would be able to speak about what's called a catch and kill scheme, when they were paying other people, other women, to silence their stories so that the National Enquirer would get rights to those stories and then bury them, not put them out there.

At the same time, the judge is allowing and decided just this morning to do this. He is going to allow the "National Enquirer" stories on Trump's opponents that reprinted that to be a part of the trial. So you're going to get the whole portrait of what it looked like around 2016. What are the allegations and what was this publication, the "National Enquirer" that was friendly to Donald Trump, what were they doing at this time, either to put things out there, to help Donald Trump in the election or to keep people quiet like Stormy Daniels?

SCIUTTO: Yeah.

We should note that the questions being asked of jurors are questions asked of jurors in criminal trials every day across this country, can you be fair? Of course, the extremely unusual circumstances of this case is that the person sitting in the dock, the defendant is a former U.S. president and a current candidate for president in 2024. That, of course Donald Trump. This all taking place behind me in a courtroom and the courthouse here in Lower Manhattan.

Katelyn Polantz, thanks so much.

We do want to turn now to the delicate deliberations in the Middle East following this unprecedented attack by Iran on Israel over the weekend. Many hundreds of missiles and drones fired at Israel. Ninety- nine percent of them according to U.S. and Israeli officials, shot down by not just Israeli anti-missile defenses, but also the participation of allies, including the U.S., the UK, France, and Arab allies as well.

Our Jeremy Diamond joins us now from Israel, where Israeli leaders are now considering in a potential response, potential retaliation for this attack.

Do we know, Jeremy, where those deliberation stand?

JEREMY DIAMOND, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Well, interestingly, Jim, Israeli officials are staying mum on whether or not a decision has been made out of this nearly three-hour long war cabinet meeting today. Yesterday, they told us very clearly that a decision had not been made, and I'm told that during this war cabinet meeting today, Israeli officials, the members of that war cabinet, reviewed military options for a potential retaliatory strike against Iran over this attack that Iran carried out over the weekend with more than 300 drones and missiles targeting Israeli soil for the first time in history.

Now, these deliberations there has really been heated debate amongst the war cabinet about the timing and the scope of such an attack on the timing front. I'm told that Benny Gantz, a key member of the war cabinet, has been pushing for a much swifter response, whereas the Israeli prime minister at least up until today, has been putting the brakes effectively on actually making a decision about authorizing a retaliatory strike.

Now, the question is, what exactly will this is rarely response look like? There is a sense that there is an attempt to thread the needle here, delivering a response that makes clear that Iranian attacks on it Israeli soil will not be met, will not go un-responded to, but at the same time trying to perhaps avoid an all-out war between Iran and Israel.

That is certainly what the United States is pushing Israel to do, to deliver a more measured response, if any response at all. And certainly respond that takes into consideration the fact that 99 percent of the drones and missiles that were fired towards Israel did not reach their targets. So this is certainly an inflection point, Jim, and we will see over the coming hours and days what unfolds and how it will of course impact the region.

SCIUTTO: Central to that question on the response, Jeremy Diamond, is, does an Israeli attack -- do Israeli options for retaliation include a strike on Iran itself. If the U.S. president, the President Biden, made very clear to Israeli officials over the weekend, that if Israel were to strike Iranian territory, the U.S. would not be evolved. Part of that message seems to be, don't -- don't strike Iranian territory.

But is it your understanding that that is still an option being considered by the Israeli war cabinet?

[15:10:08]

DIAMOND: There's no question that it still on the table, Jim. It's hard at this point to parse out. What is that kind of number one, number two and number three option.

But when Israeli official did tell me that one of the options under consideration is a strike on an Iranian facility inside Iran that would likely he unmanned and therefore not cause any civilian or any casualties at all to try and deliver a similar attack to the one that Iran delivered to Israel, where there were no casualties as a result of those Iranian missiles and drones, save for one young girl who was hit by shrapnel from an Israeli interceptor missiles.

So there's certainly an attempt to thread the needle, whether or not that can be achieved is another question

SCIUTTO: And, of course, we don't know if the lack of casualties was deliberate or just a product of the fact that 99 percent of his Israeli -- Iranian rather missiles and drones were shot down.

Jeremy Diamond in Israel, thanks so much.

Our Kevin Liptak joins us now from the White House.

Kevin, the messaging from the White House to Israel has been quite clear that they want Israel not to over respond not to further escalate because the U.S. quite invested it seems and preventing a broader war here. Does the White House believe that Israeli officials are listening to that pressure, heating those calls for restraint from the U.S.?

KEVIN LIPTAK, CNN SENIOR WHITE HOUSE REPORTER: Well, frankly, they aren't certain whether those recommendations and suggestions are being heard, particularly by the Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, with whom President Biden has been undergoing quite a tense stretch over the last several weeks. And in their phone call late Saturday night, the real emphasis that President Biden was trying to make was that Israel should consider this a very successful attempt at intercepting the Ukrainian barrage.

They point out that nothing of value was struck that over 99 percent of them were intercepted, with the suggestion that a powerful Israeli retaliation might just not be necessary. The big question that's hanging over the White House today is whether Netanyahu will receive that message.

There are plenty of American officials who really don't view the Israeli decision-making when it comes to the military as necessarily fully fleshed out, fully thought out, and certainly there are officials who believed that Netanyahu could be trying to pull the U.S. closer into direct conflict with Iran. So these are unanswered questions, but you have heard this attempt at the White House today to try and push back on these suggestions that Iran was attempting something smaller than a broad scale attack against Israel.

They do say that they view this as an attempt at a lethal attack. We heard from Admiral John Kirby, the National Security Council spokesman, trying to push back on this idea that Iran warned the United States about what it was planning to do.

Listen to what he had to say.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JOHN KIRBY, WHITE HOUSE NATIONAL SECURITY COMMUNICATIONS ADVISER: Think about this for a minute. Can you imagine a world in which Iran would pick up the phone and say, hey, we're about to try to shwack Israel with 300 cruise missiles and drones, we just wanted to let you know, it's coming and oh, by the way, here's what were going to hit? I'm sorry. It just didn't happen.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

LIPTAK: Now, President Biden did have a very important meeting earlier today with the prime minister of Iraq. That's a country that's obviously squarely in the middle of this leg, literally in the middle of it, but also politically, the future of American troop presence in that country was discussed as well. American officials have been intent that that is a very important thing to maintain. An in fact, a U.S. patriot missile so battery based near Irbil did intercept some of these Iranian missiles over the weekend.

So a topic of important discussion for the president earlier today, Jim.

SCIUTTO: Yeah, it's a great point at those troops there are part of this net that was activated this weekend to protect Israel. It was not just Israeli defenses, but U.S. defenses, including Arab allies defenses that helped take down the vast majority of these missiles and drones.

Kevin Liptak at the White House, thanks so much.

Joining us now for more analysis is Beth Sanner. She's a former deputy director of national intelligence.

Beth Sanner, good to have you on as we game out next steps here.

First to that question about the results of this attack. Iran launched an enormous number, more than 300 missiles and drones at Israel. It's the first time we've seen such an attack from Iran directly targeting Israeli territory 99 percent of them shut -- shut down some damage to one Israeli air base in the Negev desert.

But let me ask you that basic question. Did Iran want this to be bigger than based on the size and the weaponry used?

[15:15:02]

Did it want to inflict more damage than we saw?

BETH SANNER, CNN NATIONAL SECURITY ANALYST: This is a really great question, one that we grappled with for the Iranian response with the Soleimani strike and I think that, you know, the answer is you don't put up almost 350 projectiles in the air and don't intend to cause damage and harm. You have to be okay with the idea that Israelis are going to be killed because you can't calibrate that much.

So I'm kind of where the White House is and others on this that we should not underestimate this as an unprecedented attack. And the reason that it was intercepted so effectively, in part was because it wasn't a surprise. Warning or not warning, it wasn't a surprise. If it was a surprise, could look very different.

SCIUTTO: On that question of it was not a surprise, there clearly was U.S. preparation in advance, Israeli preparation in advance and some knowledge of the timing of this attack. Was that good intelligence gathering by the U.S. or was that a product in part of some messaging in advance from the Iranian side? We heard of these communications to the Turks, of course, a NATO ally, who then passed on those warnings to their U.S. counterparts.

But what was it? What was in an intelligence win or was it deliberate Iranian messaging or perhaps a combination?

SANNER: I think probably both. I mean, I'm not privy to intelligence anymore, but I suspect that it was kind of all of the above and, you know, I mean, everybody was bracing after the one April strike in Syria.

And so, you know, you start flipping on all of your network to try to find out what's happening. And then the Iranians were absolutely trying to message this because they were trying to thread the needled too.

SCIUTTO: Beth Sanner, now, Israel is considering a response here. The U.S. is deliberately applying pressure for Israel not to strike back at Iran proper. Concerned about just to constantly expanding escalation ladder. One side trying to outdo the other side, and then you end up in a war, at least that's the concern here.

What are the options in your view for Israel short of escalation? A proportionate response?

SANNER: Well, look, I mean, I think we have to also set the stage here that this idea that we have to avoid escalation at all costs also has a cost and the cost is that you set a new normal with your adversaries, really pushing the limits of what they are willing to do. And at some point, you have to push back. And I think the Israelis feel this way about Hezbollah in the north,

about Hamas and now Iran, that they can't accept this big normal.

So the options that they have, you know, range from very massive cyber attacks. I mean, they have shut down the entire Iranian fuel distribution system. I think twice in the past few years, the last one was about two, three years ago when they shut down the whole system and people could not get gasoline, there were lines everywhere for like a whole.

SCIUTTO: Yeah.

SANNER: They could do a lot in terms of cyber, and can strike an offshore type thing. They could go back to IRGC's post in Syria or other places.

But I kind of think that there they are likely to hit Iran proper. And the question is kind of when are they going to do this and how limited? And as Jeremy pointed out, I believe it was Jeremy pointed out that maybe they hit an unmanned facility.

SCIUTTO: Right. Of course, then it becomes how does the other side interpret such an attack? You cannot guarantee that they will not see it. The Iranians as a further escalation and of course, you find yourself, well, on your way.

Beth Sanner, former deputy director of national intelligence, thanks so much as always.

SANNER: Thanks, Jim.

SCIUTTO: Coming up next, more updates on what's taking place in that courtroom, in the courthouse just behind me here. Donald Trump on trial, the first criminal trial, a former U.S. president has faced. We'll have further updates on jury selection as it progresses.

Please do stay with us.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[15:22:55]

SCIUTTO: Welcome back.

I'm Jim Sciutto in New York, outside Manhattan courthouse where Donald Trump, former U.S. president, current candidate for president in 2024, is on trial at this stage, juries being questioned -- jury selection, as its known, the first batch of nearly 100 jurors has been sworn in. They've been asked questions.

The note -- most notable of those questions is, can you be an impartial juror in this case? And here's some remarkable math because of that group of 96 jurors who so far been sworn in, already, one half of them have been dismissed because their answer to that question "can I be impartial?" was no.

Joining us now is Jeff Swartz. He's a former Florida judge, professor of law at Cooley Law School.

Jeff, I wonder if you're surprised by that math, of the first 100 fully half of them have already been dismissed because they don't believe they can be impartial jurors in this trial.

JEFFREY SWARTZ, PROFESSOR, COOLEY LAW SCHOOL: Well, I think that I'm not really surprised by it. I remember, over 80 percent of the people in Manhattan voted for the other guy. They didn't vote for him. So obviously they have some sort of visual thought about him.

It's also true that in Manhattan, he's not a real popular guy and there are people that just don't really care for him much. And I think that they're looking for a way to get off of this trial, and that's the best way to get off of this trial. They really don't want to sit there for six weeks and do this.

SCIUTTO: It's a good point. I've been called to jury duty before. I'm sure you have as well. Oftentimes, you make a very personal calculation about how much time you're going to have to spend on the case this is a case, one, that's going to take some time and two, by the way, its going to put those jurors in the spotlight. The names are withheld, but there's always the possibility become known. There are a whole host of consequences that I imagine jurors, potential jurors will have to consider as they answer these questions.

We should note the Judge Merchan, who is presiding over this case, decided this morning before jury selection begun that other jurors will clear the courtroom, as each individual juror is questioned.

[15:25:07]

His judgment was he didn't want those jurors to feel like they were in front of an audience, right, as they're answering these questions being pressed. And by the way, one member of that audience is the former U.S. President Donald Trump.

Did you -- do you consider that a wise, a helpful decision by Judge Merchan?

SWARTZ: I do believe that in this particular case reining them in one at a time, which is what I thought he should be doing instead of filling and courtroom bringing, them in one at a time and asked him questions and clearing some of these initial questions would have been a lot easier than watching people start raising their hands and saying, yeah, well, I can't be fair, so as a result of which I should be let go. It's the easiest way to get yourself out of jury. That's number one.

The second reason that I have a problem with some of the things that are going on in jury selection is the idea that in fact, the defense counsels are really entitled to know who the jurors are. Now, I understand from New York law that's required, but I sort of have a problem with the idea that what's the big deal about letting everybody know about these people if the people that you're more afraid of intimidating them know their names, can find them, can find out things about them, can find their families, can send messages, whatever it may be, especially when they're not going to be sequestered.

So, there's some problems here that I see in the future coming down.

SCIUTTO: Jeff Swartz, thanks so much.

I know its not going to be the last time we asked you for your expertise as we continue to cover this trial, which is expected, we should note to last for weeks.

Joining us now to get to some more detailed questions about exactly how you empanel a jury in a case such as this.

Joining us is Richard Gabriel. He's a jury consultant. Richard, thanks so much for joining us this afternoon

RICHARD GABRIEL, JURY CONSULTANT: Thank you, Jim.

SCIUTTO: So you heard that math as we reported, just a few moments ago, that of that first batch of some 100 potential he told jurors, half were dismissed because they answered the question can you be impartial? The answer to that question is not. Does that math surprise you?

GABRIEL: No, it really doesn't. I mean, this judge wants to be efficient. He has plenty of jurors in the pool keys, just wants to say, look, I just want to get rid of everybody who's just not going to be qualified off the bat. I'm not going to go through what he previously done in another Trump case, which is have the attorneys go back and forth and say, why cant you be fair? Can you sure? He just says that's unproductive? He said that in the past.

So what he wants to do right now is go, let's just get down to business, let's talk to the jurors who don't self-identify as being impartial or have a problem. He also them if they just couldn't sit on a six-week trial, and then let's have the rest of the jurors fill out the questionnaire, and then we can get through the process of actually questing those individual jurors.

SCIUTTO: Yeah. And we learned just a moment ago that an additional nine jurors were dismissed because they have a conflict, a very basic question. You're asking people to give up their work, lives for a number of weeks in this case and quite a high case, so nine more who said they have a conflict going forward.

As they move on from these very basic questions, the list is going to begin to include questions which get to bias. So where do you get your news? So, possible connections to Trump and his businesses.

How crucial are those questions, both for prosecutors and defense attorneys as they tried to assemble a jury here?

GABRIEL: Well, they're extremely important because obviously if somebody follows Trump, is a big fan of his, then impartiality becomes much more difficult. Likewise, somebody who thinks he's a threat to democracy also has a potential bias. So, obviously, finding out where they get their news, how they filter

information also helps both sides to understand what is the sort of the foundation, what's the baseline attitude of these jurors walking into this courtroom with because that's how they will interpret the evidence in the case, either for Trump or against him. So having at least that initial knowledge and then comparing that to some of the social media searches that they may be doing on these jurors is going to be important to get a full picture of who these jurors are.

SCIUTTO: There's been a lot of attention focused on whether you can get jurors who don't have a bias against Trump. But we should know Trump only needs one juror for a hung jury. What is the strategy for defense attorneys here in trying to get a jury that's not only impartial but might be open to their arguments?

GABRIEL: Obviously, you know, so there's two things I think Trumps attorneys is going to be looking for.

[15:30:03]

One has to do with sort of a type of juror, an iconoclast, somebody who's really an outsider, doesn't mind the breaking of norms, somebody's not going to mind sort of pushing against a majority to get that hung jury.

The other thing that is I think they're looking for is a juror who's going to be really looking at this fairly unique legal theory and going, I get this hush money payment. But I'm not sure if that's actual fraud, and -- you know? So that's unique thing that they're looking for jurors who going to scrutinize this and maybe question it, create their own reasonable doubt.

SCIUTTO: Richard Gabriel, jury consultant, thanks so much for joining us this afternoon.

When we do come back new polling sheds light on exactly how voters view Trump's guilt or innocence in this -- his first criminal trial, how the case could impact the ongoing presidential campaign. It's a big question. That's coming up.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

SCIUTTO: Welcome back.

Jim Sciutto in New York.

Donald Trump's last campaign rally before entering court as a criminal defendant. Was on Saturday in Pennsylvania, and the trial was clearly on his mind.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS, ABC NEWS ANCHOR: Will your support for Donald Trump continue even if he's convicted in Manhattan?

GOV. CHRIS SUNUNU (R), NEW HAMPSHIRE: Yeah. I -- look at -- this trial is not going to have major political ramifications that a lot of people. I think -- it may have -- when it comes to these issues --

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SCIUTTO: Now, Trump is required to appear in court every weekday except Wednesday for the duration of this trial.

[15:35:05]

That is a lot of time for someone who also happens to be running for president.

So what does this mean for the campaign?

Joining us now, our panel, Republican strategist Alice Stewart and Democratic strategist, Maria Cardona.

Good to have you both on.

MARIA CARDONA, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: Hey, Jim. Thanks.

ALICE STEWART, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: Hi, Jim.

SCIUTTO: So, Alice, we have seen Trump in court before. In fact, this is a certain time in recent months, but in those instances, he chose to appear he calculated it was in his political interests, this time he is required to. And, by the way, this is not going to be over soon. It's going to last perhaps six to eight weeks.

How does that affect the campaign? And in your view, I wonder, Alice, how does it affect his chances with voters to see him in a criminal courtroom for all those days and all those weeks?

STEWART: Well, first and foremost, look, a lot of the legwork that goes on rallies and get out the vote efforts and opportunities to connect with voters. The legwork has done by advanced teams and staff, and he just parachutes in or flies in, applies out. From his standpoint, it's not a very time consuming endeavor.

But realistically, the fact that he is not able to get out there and talk more about the issues that are top of mind with voters. That's going to be a problem.

And the question of how this will impact voters. Look, his voters, Republican voters are onboard. We just heard Governor Sununu talk about his voters aren't going to be swayed by this. Democratic voters are certainly not in his camp.

The question is these independent voters are going to make the difference in the general election in November and a "New York Times"/Siena poll shows that trial is one thing, but a conviction will be a game changer. And some of them may change their mind from him if he's convicted. But right now, the trial doesn't appear to be swaying too many people, independent and late deciders, voters.

SCIUTTO: Let's -- you referenced a poll. This is a Quinnipiac poll. It asked the question, if Trump is convicted of falsifying business records, 29 percent said it would make it less likely to vote for him, 12 percent said more likely, 55 percent would not matter.

So, so a small number that would say that it would impact them negatively. I wonder as you look at those numbers, Maria Cardona, do you see this as significant? Do you believe those polls reflect how voters might be impacted by the results of this trial?

CARDONA: I think that particular poll, Jim, reflects pretty much what his base would feel like, which as Alice said, is really not going to move them no matter what happens.

But I've seen several other polls that indicate that a conviction would flip them, but also the "New York Times"-Siena poll that just came out said almost two-thirds of voters view this particular trial the fraudulent business records and hiding the hush money payments to the porn star Stormy Daniels. They view those charges as either somewhat are very serious.

And so, I think that as voters, especially independents continue to view this guy, Donald Trump, day after day after day in a courtroom, they're going to say to themselves, do we really want a criminal defendant in chief to be the one that's going to represent us on the global stage for four years as our president? And I think the answer is going to be no.

And what this trial is going to show us this isn't just about business records of the desperation of Trumps allies trying to convince us a such, I think that they're very worried about it because it's actually about election interference, and the dispute and lies that Trump tried to tell -- frankly did tell the voters in 2016 that frankly was a great reason why he got elected because they could not have all of the information at their fingertips in terms of what he tried to pull -- pulling the wool over their heads, so I think that's what's going to come to light.

SCIUTTO: Alice, let me ask you your view because there's -- there's the one factor here to see the Republican nominee in a criminal courtroom, but there's also the substance of the charges and the case. I spoke to former Republican Congressman Ken Buck last week and he said that when, by the way, he's speaking about his own voters, Republican voters, that when they are reminded but this was about an extramarital affair and attempt to do to pay money or the payment of money to hide that fact from voters during an election campaign that will affect them perhaps more than Republicans realize.

And I wonder what you -- what your responses to that thinking.

STEWART: I think that's argument to be made with regard to that.

[15:40:02]

But look, we've all known Donald Trump for many years now. And I think it's a bipartisan consensus even amongst his supporters that for the most part, when it comes to his personal life and porn stars and hush money, they recognize he's a dirt bag. But it's going to be much different when were just talking about those kind of issues when he's actually facing actual charges in a courtroom that are criminal charges and again, right now, he's innocent until proven guilty. But if this were to be a conviction, as you said, it could sway voters.

But Donald Trump is making the argument. My dear friend Maria talked about threats to democracy Donald Trump, every time he goes in and out of that courtroom, he is going to talk about this trial and all of these legal issues as threats to democracy. It's an assault on political adversary an enemy, and it's also an opportunity to go against someone who has the opponent of the Democratic president.

And he's going to make that case whether or not it sits within the pennant voters. That's going to be his argument in and out of the courtroom.

SCIUTTO: Yeah, listen, that's exactly the argument he made this morning on his way into the courthouse. He is expected to speak on his way out this afternoon. I wouldn't be surprised if we hear it again.

Before we go, Maria, President Biden has deliberately stayed away from most public commentary on this case to attempt to establish some distance between him and what's happening here. I wonder, do you think the president has to push back more explicitly on that charge and say, listen, this was a decision of a Manhattan prosecutor in this case or a special counsel on the January 6 and documents cases, or is it smart for him to keep his distance?

CARDONA: I don't think he has to comment on this at all because every image that were seeing on our TV screens is going to speak volumes and be much more effective than President Biden having to address it directly. And in fact, he should be doing exactly what he's doing now, which is going out campaigning, talking to the people, he's going to be going out to Pennsylvania talking about his massive accomplishments, talking about threats to democracy like my dear friend Alice said, talking about how there is a huge election that, that is coming where the choice is going to be very stark between somebody does represent a huge threat to democracy and somebody Joe Biden, who wants to protect democracy.

And frankly, I think the more than Donald Trump tries to break down and diminish our institutions of justice again, for his base that is threatening, but for independent voters and for people who have already seen Donald Trump as a threat (INAUDIBLE) against him in 2020, that is not going to play well. And those are the voters, the independent voters who Trump needs to add to his coalition. And the more that he tries to diminish our (INAUDIBLE), the more they're going to say, again, why do we want the dirt bag in chief? Why do we want a criminal defendant in chief?

We deserve better. And Donald Trump is going to help us make that case.

SCIUTTO: Well, ultimately, it'll be up to the voters whether that weighs their vote.

Alice Stewart, Maria Cardona, thanks so much to both of you. Jim Sciutto in Lower Manhattan. In that courtroom behind me, jury selection underway in the first criminal trial of a former U.S. president. We'll be right back with more news after this short break

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

SCIUTTO: Turning now to our other top story, how will Israel respond to Iran's unprecedented drone and missile attack over the weekend? And when?

Joining me now CNN political and global affairs analyst and "Axios" politics and foreign policy reporter, Barak Ravid.

Barak, thanks so much for joining us.

BARAK RAVID, CNN POLITICAL AND GLOBAL AFFAIRS ANALYST: Hi, Jim.

SCIUTTO: You have new reporting. I understand about a conversation yesterday between in the Israeli ministry of defense, Yoav Gallant, and U.S. Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin about what exactly Israel is considering now.

Can you share what we know about that conversation?

RAVID: Well, thee rarely ministry of defense calls Austin to basically let them know Israel is going to respond to these to the Iranian missile and drone attack. And he tells Austin that there are two main reasons for it. It tells him, listen, we don't have any other choice because if we don't respond after more than 100 ballistic missiles were fired at U.S. in an unprecedented way from Iran, it will basically devastate Israel's (INAUDIBLE).

And the second reason is that Israel doesn't want to accept this new equation that the Iranians are trying to laid down here, that any Israeli action against Iranian targets in Syria would mean an Iranian attack from its soil against Israel.

So, those are the two reasons that Gallant lay down to Austin in this call. And today, I think we hear this was the private the message. Today, the IDF chief of staff in public in front of the cameras in an air force base of an F35 squadron, just said directly that Israel is going to respond and he just said, we will pick the time and place of our choosing.

SCIUTTO: Barak, let me ask you a question, in terms of exactly what that response might look like, because President Biden made clear over the weekend that it would prefer if Israel did not attack Iranian territory proper in retaliation. Are there options short of that? And our options short of that on the table? Or is it more likely that Israel does choose to strike Iranian territory in response

RAVID: Well, there are a lot of options. You know, Israel can also conduct strikes inside Iran, but not in an overt way, but in a covert way. A bit more than a year ago, a drone factory in Iran exploded. Israel never took responsibility for this strike inside Iran that had quite significant influence on Iran's drones capability. And the Iranians did not respond and retaliate directly against Israel. So that's definitely an option.

The question is, if the Israeli government thinks it needs to go for an overt response with, you know, fighter jets flying to Iran and bombing targets there. It would also be an unprecedented Israeli action.

I think the jury is still out. All those options in front of the Israeli cabinet. It is unclear to me whether there is a final decision or not.

An interesting thing today, White House spokesman John Kirby sort of a distance the U.S. from this whole thing, saying that the U.S isn't involved in Israel's decision-making. And he said these rallies can take whatever decision they wanted, it's their own business.

I found that to be surprising and maybe do something happening behind the scenes.

SCIUTTO: Possibly, possibly allowing them to leave their options open.

Barak Ravid, thanks so much for joining.

RAVID: Thank you.

SCIUTTO: And we will be right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[15:53:24]

SCIUTTO: Before we go, how did we get to a place where a former President Donald Trump is in a Manhattan courtroom, just behind me here facing 34 felony accounts for falsifying business records? It's an historic trial.

CNN's Brian Todd tells us how we got here.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

BRIAN TODD, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): It wasn't until almost 12 years after the affair allegedly occurred that the world first learned of the allegations of hush money payments to Stormy Daniels.

In January 2018, "The Wall Street Journal" reported that in the weeks before the 2016 election, Donald Trump had arranged a $130,000 payment to the adult film star to keep her from publicly discussing their alleged 2006 encounter.

Later, former Trump attorney Michael Cohen testified that Trump directed him to make payments to Daniels, quote, for the principal purpose of influencing the election. And that Trump later reimbursed him.

Cohen served jail time for campaign finance violations related to the hush money payments and gave jarring testimony to Congress. MICHAEL COHEN, DONALD TRUMP'S FORMER ATTORNEY: I am ashamed that I

chose to take part in concealing Mr. Trump's elicit acts rather than listening to my own conscience.

TODD: Donald Trump has always denied having an affair with Stormy Daniels.

In April 2018, Trump was asked by reporters about hush money.

REPORTER: Mr. President, did you know about the $130,000 payment to Stormy Daniels?

TRUMP: No.

TODD: But, later in 2018, in an ethics filing, Trump acknowledged reimbursing Michael Cohen for more than $100,000, but didn't say what it was for.

Daniels spoke to Anderson Cooper in a CBS interview about the alleged payment.

ANDERSON COOPER, HOST, "60 MINUTES": Was it hush money to stay silent?

[15:55:01]

STORMY DANIELS, ALLEGES AFFAIR WITH DONALD TRUMP: Yes. I believe without a shadow of a doubt in my heart, and some people argue that I don't have one of those, but whatever, that I was doing the right thing.

TODD: That same year, The New Yorker magazine detailed reports that Trump had had an affair with former Playboy model Karen McDougal. She spoke to Anderson Cooper about it.

KAREN MCDOUGAL, ALLEGES AFFAIR WITH DONALD TRUMP: The only regret I have about the relationship that I had with Donald was the fact that he was married.

TODD: "The Wall Street Journal" reported four days before the 2016 election that the publisher of the "National Enquirer" tabloid had paid McDougal $150,000 for the rights to her story shortly after Trump became the Republican nominee for President, but that the "Enquirer" never published the story.

DAVID CAY JOHNSTON, AUTHOR, "THE MAKING OF DONALD TRUMP": Catch and kill, that is pay someone and then kill a story that would be damaging to Donald.

MCDOUGAL: I knew the story wasn't going to be printed. They didn't want to hurt him.

TODD: Trump has denied having an affair with McDougal. He was indicted a year ago on 34 felony counts of falsifying business records related to the Daniels hush money payments. He's pleaded not guilty.

Cohen, Daniels, and McDougal, are among those expected to be on the witness list for this trial. How credible a witness would Daniels be?

SHAN WU, FORMER FEDERAL PROSECUTOR: She seems like she would make a very good witness. If I were trying the case, I'd be happy to put on the stand. What really helps the prosecution here is what she is talking about is all corroborated in the documents.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

SCIUTTO: Thanks to Brian Todd for that report.

Do stay with CNN for full coverage of the Trump hush money trial. I'm Jim Sciutto in New York.

"QUEST MEANS BUSINESS" is up next.