Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Newsroom

CNN International: Now: Prosecutors, Defense Have Chance To Strike Potential Jurors; Biden Hits Trail In Pennsylvania To Pitch Economic Message; Israeli War Cabinet Meets Again, Government Vows Response To Iran; Six Jurors Have Been Selected In Trump Hush Money Trial; Speaker Johnson: Foreign Aid Will Be Considered In Four Separate Bills; WSJ: DOJ Preparing To File Antitrust Suit Against Live Nation. Aired 3-4p ET

Aired April 16, 2024 - 15:00   ET

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

[15:00:34]

JIM SCIUTTO, CNN INTERNATIONAL HOST: It's 8:00 p.m. in London, 10:00 p.m. in Tehran, 12:00 p.m. in Los Angeles, 3:00 p.m. here in New York. I'm Jim Sciutto. Thanks so much for joining me today on CNN NEWSROOM.

And let's get right to the news.

We are back live outside 100 Centre Street in Manhattan. It is day two of jury selection in the people of the state of New York v. Donald J. Trump, the first criminal trial of a former U.S. president, and, of course, current candidate for president.

Today, Donald Trump sits in court observing the Manhattanites who could end up deciding his legal fate here. A slim, older man who's read Trump's "Art of the Deal", a Mexican immigrant who gain U.S. citizenship in 2017 and like scuba diving, a recent college grad who said that she has no strong feelings about Donald Trump and lives with three roommates in Chelsea. Those are some of the potential jurors questioned this morning under the eye of Trump himself. So far, zero have been officially selected to sit for the historic trial.

Right now, both sides have a chance to strike individual jurors without cause. A reminder of the stakes here, Trump faces some 34 felony counts for falsifying business records allegedly in an effort to cover up an affair with adult film star Stormy Daniels, right in the lead up to the 2016 presidential election.

Trump denies the affair, and has pleaded not guilty to all of those charges.

Following all the twists and turns for us today is CNN's Zach Cohen.

Zach, I understand the judge just struck one juror. Bring us up to speed on what's happening right now in the room because I also hear that the judge admonished Trump for speaking in the direction of one of the jurors?

ZACHARY COHEN, CNN REPORTER: Yeah, Jim, that's right. So Trump's team is currently challenging some of these doors for it to be eliminated for calls, right? So that would mean that they're asking the judge remove them from the potential jury pool without having to use any of those ten total strikes, they get to preemptively try to eliminate these doors and, you know, we've already seen him challenge to different jobs so far since returning from lunch, one of them was a woman who they raised concerns about her social media posts, basically describing a post where she was celebrating Joe Biden's 2020 election, when there was a video that was described in court according to our colleagues, are there of her in a car where honking and celebration is ensued.

Trump's lawyers are arguing at those posts do represent an anti-Trump bias and they wanted her to be removed from the case and from the jury pool for cause. But the judge disagreed with that. The judge brought the juror in without any of the other jurors present, and asked her about the post and she explained it. She says, quote, I'm very, very strongly believed that regardless of my thoughts about anyone or anything political feelings or convictions that the job of a juror is to understand the facts of a trial and to be the judge of those facts.

Judge Merchan told attorneys on both sides, said, look, that juror looked me in the eye and made it clear that they believe they can be impartial in rendering a fair verdict in this case, denying that first attempt by Trump's lawyers to challenge a juror for cause. But there was a second juror that was challenged for cause by Trump's team. Judge Merchan ultimately did strike that juror over a social media post that included the words "lock him up" in reference to Trump, making it clear that even though that post was posted several years ago, that this juror had expressed the desire to see Donald Trump in jail.

So we're getting an understanding of where the line is for Judge Merchan, as Trump's team is trying to narrow down this pool of jurors and eliminate anybody with what they say is anti-Trump bias.

SCIUTTO: OK. So tell us about this moment when the judge admonished Trump. For speaking in the direction and it seems to judge was saying that the Trump was or might be intimidating one of the jurors or attempting to.

COHEN: That's right. When this first juror was brought in, that was challenged by Trump's team, Trump clearly was in audibly, visibly was reacting to what this juror was saying in response to questions from the judge, you know, after the juror left the room, our colleagues say that the judge did admonish Trump himself saying that he should not tolerate and he will not tolerate any sort of intimidation of jurors in this case. So, you know, trying to keep control of the courtroom as we're going through this slow but steady process of selecting a jury.

SCIUTTO: No question. A lot to work through here. Wheels of justice, they can move slowly.

Zach Cohen, thanks so much.

[15:05:01]

I want to bring in Jeff Swartz now. He is a former Florida judge himself, now a professor at Cooley Law School.

Good to have you back, Jeff. Thanks so much for joining

JEFFREY SWARTZ, PROFESSOR, COOLEY LAW SCHOOL: Always a pleasure to be here, Jim.

SCIUTTO: So let me ask about the legal standard here because if having a post, a social media post in your past expressing some political view is disqualifying, then wouldn't that disqualify a very large portion of the population? I mean, is the judge two then presume that if you have not expressed -- if you've expressed any -- unless you've expressed no political opinion or support, Donald Trump, then you can't be on the jury. Explain what -- what the bar is here.

SWARTZ: The bar is very simple. You can have opinions and you can have bias and prejudice to a certain extent as long as when the judge asks you, can you set aside all of that and judge, this case solely on the facts that you hear in this courtroom. And the law, as I explained it to you, they are qualified to be a juror and it's not a basis of cost to strike them just because they have that bias or they have that knowledge.

So I have -- when I was watching just now and saw exactly what that juror said, she said exactly what needed to be said, that the judge needed to hear to not striker for cause. It was the right ruling.

SCIUTTO: So each side has 10 strikes, peremptory strikes in which they don't have to explain why or make the case for it. But what's happening now is that Trump's defense team has so far been challenging every juror. And it seems that the judge is getting somewhat impatient with that. I suppose they have the right to say whatever they want in the courtroom.

But how -- how is the judge likely to respond if they -- if they challenge everyone and claimed that every single jurors somehow biased.

SWARTZ: There's a little bit of a game being played here and you have to look behind it. And that is that every juror they tried to strike for cause that's denied is a basis of an appeal. If in fact some of the claims that they are making turn out to be true or that they want to allege that they are true. So you have to take a look at this very carefully.

There's also an additional game that's deployed on here. At the end of the jury selection when someone's used their 10 peremptory challenges, the judge is going to try to protect their record against being appealed on some of these challenged cause, and will ask for more peremptory challenges, judges tend to give more peremptory challenges upon a defendant's request knowing full well with the same number will now be given to the state.

And I think that's what they're trying to do, to extend out the jury selection process one in time and two in numbers.

SCIUTTO: No question and listen, well, extend, delay has been a feature of Donald Trump's legal defense in every case he's faced for a number of years.

Before we go, (VIDEO GAP) or seem to say intimidating or attempting to intimidate one of the jurors. How significant is that moment?

SWARTZ: It is significant because what is happening is he's trying to goad the prosecution. At some point, he will continue to do that. He will continue to look at the jurors. He'll scowl at them. He'll make little signal with his hands. He will do things to try to intimidate these jurors, or influence them.

SCIUTTO: Yeah.

SWARTZ: He's trying to goad the state into moving for a mistrial, and by moving for a mistrial, he then -- the state -- it might grant it, and then he gets a mistrial and gets to start all over.

SCIUTTO: Yeah.

SWARTZ: And I think that's what he's going to do to --

(CROSSTALK)

SCIUTTO: Can I ask you very -- a very basic question as relates to the jurors. Donald Trump in various legal proceedings have attacked judges, family members of judges. There have been gag orders issues -- issued, questions as to whether Trump has abided by those gag orders.

Can Trump -- I mean, he's going to know the identities of these people. Can he attack them in public? I mean, he speaks every day. He walks in and out of this courtroom. Can he do that?

SWARTZ: I think the gag order is already been extended to jurors and that is the case. That's why these names are not given in public. He's entitled to them pursuant to New York law. I'm not so sure. And a lot of other states he would get those names.

So as I'm looking at it right now, yes, he will try to do those things. The question will be, will he go far enough to find himself with additional charges for jury tampering. That I'm looking forward to seeing whether he goes that far, either directly or indirectly by having other people do his bidding.

[15:10:03]

SCIUTTO: It's a very fair question. Jeff Swartz, thanks so much as always.

So let's speak more about the jury selection process. How do you get to 12 jurors and those six alternates for a trial featuring such a high profile defendant?

Jason Bloom, is with me. He's been a jury consultant for more than 15 years.

Jason, thanks so much for joining me.

JASON BLOOM, JURY CONSULTANT: Thank you

SCIUTTO: So, Jason, there is opinion and then there's bias, or lack of impartiality here and it is, okay for that lawyers to challenge jurors based on what they argue is an inability to be impartial but having political opinions, having a voting record, et cetera, as I understand, it, does not disqualify a juror.

How is the judge how is this process going to distinguish between those two groups as we go through this process of objection?

BLOOM: Yeah, I think it's going to be consistent here as it is all over the country. And that is a self-reporting bias by the perspective juror. It's not actually prosecution and/or the defense saying because of these facts, A, B, and C, because of these opinions, X, Y, and Z, this jury is biased.

The juror actually has to say, I cannot be fair. I cannot be impartial, or I actually do have a bias, and then they should be excused for cause. So it's really a self-reporting type, too.

SCIUTTO: So, each side has 10 peremptory strikes. In other words, they can strike a juror really without cause, without explanation of cause. But what's happening right now is the defense attorneys are challenging every juror, claiming caused. The judge rejected their arguments for the first juror, but did dismiss the second juror based on a social media post, but it's also clear that the judge is getting somewhat frustrated with the defense teams challenge for every single juror that comes -- comes in the dock.

Is that something that the judge can accelerate? Get by? Or are we going to be in this for the duration?

BLOOM: I think each side has the right to challenge any prospective juror for cause and the judge has to go through it one by one and make a ruling, make a determination. I will grant that challenge for cause or I will overrule that challenge for cause. And it just gets laborious. But for Donald Trump and his defense team, it's risk-free to challenge someone for cause, because if you think about it, you mentioned that earlier, each side gets ten peremptory.

So every additional strike from a challenge for cause is an extra peremptory, quite frankly.

SCIUTTO: Right.

BLOOM: Mathematics --

(CROSSTALK)

SCIUTTO: So tell us what kind of jurors -- tell us what kind of jurors the defense team wants -- wants to keep. We've seen the ones they don't want. What kind of jurors do they want?

BLOOM: But I think -- I think bottom line is they want a blank slate. They want someone that does not know anything about this. And everyone knows Donald Trump or most of the population does, and everyone also, another layer to this, knows about the facts and allegations in this particular situation.

It's not like this trial is going to reveal a story that no one has ever heard. And it's been with us for a long time as well. So they really want someone who is neutral, apolitical or pro-Trump obviously, as well as someone who knows very little about the situation because if they know something about the situation, it's likely they've formed an opinion and they kind of think that they already had seen the movie before.

SCIUTTO: But that's almost impossible standard, is it not, maybe not know anything about this? I mean, this is a former president and current candidate for president. This trial, as have his other criminal charges, have received an enormous amount of coverage. Can you find someone who doesn't know much about that? Is that -- is that a reasonable standard?

BLOOM: I agree with you. It's difficult that that's why this judge has gone out of his way to bring in more jurors, and I would also add to this equation, there have been two trials related to Trump in the last, I don't know, 12 or 18 months where they'd been able to seat a jury panel now, in order to see every panel, you've got to have 12 of six, however many it is some say they can be fair, who say they do not have a bias.

Now whether or not they really can be fair, and whether or not they really do have a bias is something different?

SCIUTTO: Well, listen, we should be frank. This is something that happens in multiple courtrooms every day around the country, attempting to find a fair jury. It's not a perfect process.

[15:15:01]

A jury of your peers is a right, right for defendants. It's not a burden. Granted, of course, this is historic to have a former president and current candidate for president.

But it is -- it is something the legal system, the court system struggles with every day.

Jason Bloom, thanks so much for bringing us your expertise on this.

Well, in 2020, President Biden framed the contest between him and Donald Trump as Scranton versus Park Avenue.

Today, the Biden campaign is looking to revive that contrast while Trump sits in a Manhattan court just behind me here, President Biden is on the campaign trail in Scranton, Pennsylvania, his original hometown using the backdrop of the working class city where he spent his early childhood years to pitch his tax plan, which does include raising taxes on the richest Americans and on corporations.

CNN White House reporter Camila DeChalus has more.

Camila, tell us more about his message today, a deliberate contrast that strikes me in two ways. One, Scranton versus Mar-a-Lago as he's framing it, but also, two, campaign trail and courtroom where I am.

CAMILA DECHALUS, CNN WHITE HOUSE REPORTER: That's right. President Biden really talked in Scranton a lot about what the economic policies he wants to put out there if he's reelected to a second term, and he really use this opportunity to try to connect with the people there, talking about his middle-class upbringing growing up in Pennsylvania and why he's really committed to trying to help middle-class families with the policies that he set out to do in the last four years, but what he hopes to implement and the next four years.

And he really draw, drew that contrast with Trump saying that Trump only really looks out for wealthy people that only wants to implement policies that benefit them. And he's really not fit to govern the American public if he's elected in the next four years.

And so, that was really Biden's message. And I really want to play a quick clip of what he said. They're really just emphasizes how he wants to draw the start contrast between himself and Trump. Take a quick listen.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JOE BIDEN, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: He learned the best way to get rich is inheriting. Not a bad way, I'm not. He learned that paying taxes is something people who worked for living did, not him. He learned a telling people you're fired was something to laugh about. I guess that's how you look at the world when you're in Park Avenue and Mar-a-Lago. But if you grew up in a place like Scranton, nobody handed you anything.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

DECHALUS: So Biden is really trying to emphasize that he has the best interests of middle-class families and he is trying to put out policies that can protect them, like implementing the child tax credit, like his tax proposal plan that he says benefits middle-class families and he's really just trying to emphasize and really draw that picture of what a possible second term under Trump would look like and why that is not in the best interests of the American people.

SCIUTTO: Camila DeChalus at the White House, thanks so much.

Still to come this hour, Israel continues to weigh its response to Iran's drone and missile attack. Where will Israel land, we are alive in the region. That's coming up.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[15:21:17]

ANNOUNCER: This is CNN breaking news

SCIUTTO: We do have a breaking news from inside the courtroom just behind us here in Lower Manhattan. Three jurors have now been selected to sit on the first criminal trial of a former U.S. president, the trial of course, of Donald Trump. Let's go back to CNN's Zach Cohen, who's been following.

Zach, that brings us if my fractions or write to 1/6 of the jury that you need, 12 plus six alternates. How did we get here?

COHEN: Yeah, Jim, it's been a flurry of activity since these attorneys and Donald Trump and these jurors returned from lunch. You know, defense attorneys on for Trump did try to challenge for cause several of these jurors in this first pool of 12, they failed in some cases, and its exceeded and others. Prosecutors also tried to challenge and remove certain jurors. We ended up with three of the 12 currently face questions from both sides.

Again, like you said, three of 12 total jurors that we need plus the six alternates. We are a sixth of the way there so far in question, it continues, we're now -- prosecutors and defense attorneys are now talking about the remaining six jurors who are in this pool of 18, this first pool that is being considered.

It's interesting to see how many of these jurors have been removed. Those so far of this initial 12, again, social media posts coming into play as defense attorneys are trying to narrow down this jury pool and really limited anybody who has spoken about are posted about Donald Trump in the past

SCIUTTO: You have the objections for cause and then you have the peremptory strikes as they're known, where defense and prosecution can without explanation, call for a jury to be struck. Do we know how far into there their maximum of ten each for those peremptory strikes, we are at this point?

COHEN: Yeah, Jim, each side appears to have used a few of their peremptory strikes we're still adding up how many both have used, but it is interesting because like you said, Trump's team in particular was trying to get several jurors struck strictly for cause first before using those strikes and really, were referencing and harping on social media post.

The line though for Judge Merchan seems to be whether or not any of these jurors toasted about wanting to see Donald Trump in jail. That was the case for one of these jurors who was stricken for a cause otherwise, posts like, you know, about a celebratory -- celebrating Joe Biden's 2020 election win. Another juror posting or the husband of a juror posting about their political views -- that didn't quite meet that threshold for Judge Merchan to remove them from the case.

You know, in that case, prosecutors and defense attorneys then could have the option of preemptively trying to use one of their strikes to get them removed.

SCIUTTO: Yeah, the judge in that case, said, if the best you can do, speaking of defense attorneys, is a post from these spouse of a potential juror that doesn't meet me the standard.

Zach Cohen, thanks so much.

I do want to go back to go back to Jason Bloom, jury consultant for more than 15 years.

Jason, so three jurors out of this initial pool of 18 as they worked through the broader pool that they have. Is that moving more quickly than you expect it?

BLOOM: I think it's moving more quickly than anyone really expected, but I think we're still early in a slow and steady process. It's not a crystal ball. I'd say you have a jury by Thursday or maybe even Friday. Start opening statements next week.

SCIUTTO: Wow.

Jason Bloom, thanks so much.

That's three. You need 18. Of course, 12, plus then the six alternates, and we're sixth of the way there.

Now to the other big story we are falling this hour. We're continuing to cover the fallout from Iran's unprecedented drone and cruise missile strike on Israel, just this past weekend. Earlier today, Israel's war cabinet met for the fifth time as the Israeli government considers its response.

[15:25:00]

A senior U.S. official tells CNN that Israel's response is expected to be, quote, limited in scope.

Iran is warning of a severe response if its interests are targeted again.

Our Ben Wedeman is in Beirut where he's been tracking all the developments.

Ben, as you well know, Israel urged by the U.S. and other allies to exercise restraint as it plans are response. But we also hear of deep divisions inside that Israeli war cabinet, as to how to respond.

Do we know where the debate stands and how close we might be to a decision?

BEN WEDEMAN, CNN SENIOR INTERNATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: No, in fact, after this, as you said, the fifth meeting of the war cabinet since those overnight strikes on Saturday happened, we don't really have a clear idea at this point. We, it's understood that the Israelis, there seems to be consensus to do something. But where, how and to what degree the intensity of that strike is not at all clear, but certainly we do know that it seems that the lines to Jerusalem and Tel Aviv are burning up with various officials around the region around the world calling on the Israelis to exercise restraint.

The Egyptian foreign minister spoke with Israeli and Iranian counterparts telling them that any sort of for tat back and of retaliation? Between the two sides. Could lead to a regional disaster.

Rishi Sunak, the British prime minister spoke with Prime Minister Netanyahu, said that now is the time for cooler heads? Two prevail. The German foreign minister is on her way to Israel to try to persuade the Israelis to deescalate. So, really it comes down to perhaps domestic political considerations when it comes to the final decision on what to do.

But the Iranians have made it quite clear. Ebrahim Raisi, the president, spoke to his Qatari counterpart saying that the smallest action against Iran's interest will be met with a severe, extensive and painful response. So the scene is set for a serious escalation many are hoping, particularly here in Lebanon which could feel the brunt of any sort of regional conflict, sort of disaster if that were to take place, are hoping that indeed cooler heads do prevail Jim.

SCIUTTO: We'll be watching. Ben Wedeman in Lebanon, thanks so much.

Joining me now to discuss, CNN political and national security analyst and "New York Times" White House and national security correspondent, David Sanger.

David good to have you on. I believe your book is out today. Is that right?

DAVID SANGER, CNN POLITICAL AND NATIONAL SECURITY ANALYST: It is indeed, "New Cold Wars: China's Rise, Russia's Invasion and America's Struggle to Defend the West".

SCIUTTO: And certainly, the Middle East, one of the playing fields of that broader global conflict.

David, we talk a lot about disagreement or tension between the U.S. and Israel with the progress of the war in Gaza. But now on how Israel might respond to the strikes. Pressure being -- pressure being applied from Biden to Israel. But there's also division.

Is there not within that Israeli war cabinet, Gantz, Gallant and Netanyahu, do you have any sense as to whether those three or nearing some sort of consensus on how and when to respond to this Iranian strike?

SANGER: It's really hard to tell because, you know, it's a black box as they meet. And the dynamic between them often shifts. But it's not hard. I think Jim to imagine the range of possibilities. I think the first thing the U.S. has been saying to them is just because Iran launched its first attack ever on Israel from Iranian territory does not mean that, you know, that Israel should continue the break of the taboo and do a launch right back onto Iranian territory. I think that would be the most escalatory thing.

So I think possibility number one is they do an attack that is against Iranian interests, but not in Iran. Make a second possibility is they ramp up something in the cyber realm, something like that, where there isn't a visible televised event, like there was last Saturday night when we were all watching drones and missiles come at Israel.

To do cyber, it's a little easier for other countries to ratchet it down later because they're not embarrassed in public. There are other things like that, including going after the Iranian scientists again, specific facilities of the nuclear program.

But my guess is, Jim, the nuclear program is pretty sensitive for Iran right now because given these events, they're going to be very tempted to ramp that up.

[15:30:10]

SCIUTTO: And President Biden made clear over the weekend that the us would not be involved in any Israeli attack it involves Iran.

As you know, David Netanyahu, he is, well, he's ignored some advice and warnings from the Biden administration over the last several months, and frankly, going back to other administrations through the years. Is he in a position now to do the same?

SANGER: You know, every time we think he's not in a position to do it because we think that he may fear that American aid could get slowed down or cut off. He does it anyway and especially if the aid package goes through as I suspect it will through the House, this week. I think if anything, he'll feel less pressure.

I think that bigger pressure he's feeling is at home where, of course, you saw protests against him rising up until this attack happened. He's got a brief moment here where you can change the discussion from what he's been doing in Gaza, which has brought all of the splits with the U.S. And change it to Iran and I think if he's wise, he'll try to keep it that way, but, you know, we've seen him make those choices before.

The other problem we have here in this goes straight to that. Some of the arguments in my book and then yours is that the Russians and the Chinese used to be on the American and European side here to urge calm, they are now really much more closely allied with Iran.

SCIUTTO: Yeah, that contributes potentially to the chances for escalation.

If you and I were talking last week, David, at this time, we'd be focused very much on Israel's planned ground offensive inside Rafah the latest reporting is that Israel has delayed those plans as it focuses on its response to Iran's attack.

What happened -- what happens in Gaza next after perhaps an attack on Iranian assets? Do we know next steps there?

SANGER: Well, we don't know them, but you have to think that if this keeps up between Iran and Israel, its going to make it all the harder to put together a hostage released feel, and then some kind of six- week ceasefire. And just last a week ago, Monday, American officials, U.S. officials involved in the negotiations, thought that they were about as close to getting a deal as they had ever been. And then, of course, this all happened.

It's hard to imagine Hamas striking this kind of deal while there is active encounters underway between Iran and Israel. I will say that as events carried played out this weekend, one of my first thoughts went to those hostages and what that meant for negotiations.

SANGER: Yeah, it's painful for the families.

SCIUTTO: David Sanger, thanks so much.

No question.

Well, as I mentioned, Sanger is author of the book, "New Cold Wars: China's Rise, Russia's Invasion, and America's Struggle to Defend the West". That is out today, very much worth a look, and your time.

It's still to come this our, House Speaker Mike Johnson has vowed he will not resign as the threat to his gavel intensifies by members of his own conference as he attempts to move long-delayed aid packages, not just for Israel, but Ukraine and Taiwan as well.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[15:36:52]

SCIUTTO: On Capitol Hill, a plan to get long-delayed in much needed aid to Ukraine, Israel, and Taiwan seems to be gaining some momentum, but will it spell the end potentially for Speaker Mike Johnson in the House of Representatives? Open questions with GOP majority shrinking to one vote now, on Friday, it would only take two to topple Johnson, that is, if Democrats do not step in to save him.

And today, Marjorie Taylor Greene, who has been leading the opposition to Johnson, got her second vote in Republican Thomas Massie, that is potential vote to remove, but defiant Speaker Johnson said it is not over yet.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REP. MIKE JOHNSON (R-LA), SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: I am not resigning and it is -- it is in my view an absurd notion that someone will bring a vacate motion when we are simply here trying to do our jobs. It is not helpful to the cause. It is not helpful to the country. It has not helped the House Republicans advance our agenda, which is in the best interest of the American people here.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SCIUTTO: Joining me now, Illinois Democratic Congressman Mike Quigley, he is co-chair of the Congressional Ukraine Caucus.

Congressman, thanks so much for taking time this afternoon.

REP. MIKE QUIGLEY (D-IL): Thanks -- thank you, Jim.

SCIUTTO: So you're seeing another attack on the Republican speaker from his right flank here. If there were to be a motion to vacate, do you believe that Democrats would vote to help Johnson maintained his speakership?

QUIGLEY: Jim, I just left a one-on-one meeting with Leader Jeffries. He made it clear that procedure comes after substance. Let's see what's in these bills. Let's see what he's willing to do and then anything's possible.

I'll say this individually. Speaker McCarthy would still be Speaker McCarthy if he had reached out and talk about raising the debt ceiling and got a deal done in and stuck to it. The speakers who think that the crazy caucus can be appeased are former speakers.

SCIUTTO: Okay, let's talk about this latest plan to get aid to Ukraine, to Israel, to Taiwan passed, instead of all at once in individual votes, you and I have been talking about this for months as Ukraine, in particular suffers from a shortage of military assistance from the U.S.

Do you believe this plan will work? Do you believe this aid will not just get a vote, but get passed this?

QUIGLEY: This is the worst possible plan to get it done. It's conceivable. Clearly, the opposition is going to not weigh the 72 hours, so we'll probably be here late Friday and Saturday. We still haven't seen text of what they're attempting to do.

So at this point in time, it's still -- we should have done this months ago, of course. It's further evidence of an inability to govern.

And finally, there's no sin in compromising and working with the party across the aisle. In fact, it's the only way any of this will get done.

[15:40:00]

SCIUTTO: Let me ask you this because you and others and by the way, Republican lawmakers who support this aid have said, if this aid, Ukraine, Israel, Taiwan, if it gets to the floor and gets a vote, it's going to pass. Are you confident these -- divided up as the speaker is now planning that they will at least get a vote?

QUIGLEY: I think they'll get a vote. But again, the process makes a big difference. So they're going to open this up to a multiple amendments. Let's appreciate the fact the Senate won't pass any of those bills. The Senate has already passed this if we, if we put that bill on the floor, the Senate bill, it would pass in the president would sign it tonight or tomorrow. And this critical aid would go through this.

Again, this is the worst possible way were doing it. It still stands a chance. It just puts itself in opposition to its possible passing.

SCIUTTO: Understood.

Well, in an interview with the "PBS NewsHour", Ukrainian President Zelenskyy suggested NATO partners are more interested now in defending Israel than Ukraine and looking, he said for excuses not to provide that assistance to Ukraine.

What's your response to that argument?

QUIGLEY: I've met President Zelenskyy six times during the war. He's been Churchill-like I would say. I can imagine he's under the most enormous strain.

So, look, I think you get to give him a little slack and recognize it just how much pressure he is under. He's trying to hold us together when the key component here, the United States, is wavering. So I think he's done an amazing job and it's our job not worry about one sound bite he said in frustration, but to help them win a war that's critical to us as well.

SCIUTTO: He also said that the lack or shortage of air defense missiles meant that Ukraine could not protect a key power plant from a Russian assault in the last several days. And, by the way, that's been part, as you know, of a broader assault just to burn down Ukraine's infrastructure, you just returned from a visit to Ukraine.

How precarious is the position now of Ukrainian forces without U.S. assistance?

QUIGLEY: Yeah, we met with Polish, U.S. and Ukrainian military, it's now or never. It's very precarious.

I think that there are being out shelled eight to one. Let's remember that 97 percent of the Russian targets with missiles and rockets are civilian or infrastructure. So this is the worst kind of warfare by at that spot.

And the pipeline is nearly empty. And it takes a long time to fill that pipeline. We are way past two going through some process to appease people you'll never appease. It's putting lives and democracy in Eastern Europe at risk.

SCIUTTO: Before we go, just a final question. Is there any discussion of bringing these aid measures to the floor which Democrats want in exchange for Democrats saving Mike Johnson's gavel? Is there any discussion of that quid pro quo in effect?

QUIGLEY: Look, I know members talk about it individually and to each other across the floor. To my knowledge, Speaker Johnson has not reached out. You know, this -- and it's not so much about savings gavel, its just agreeing to a process to move forward.

I would just say if Speaker McCarthy had done this, he'd still be speaker. Speaker Johnson wants to go the other way and continually tried to do things without Democratic help, with only a one volt majority he's diluting himself and he's putting a tremendous amount at risk.

SCIUTTO: A lot to watch for on Capitol Hill this week. Congressman Mike Quigley, I'm sure you have a busy one. Thanks so much for joining.

QUIGLEY: Anytime. Thank you.

SCIUTTO: Well, we do have more breaking room -- breaking news from inside the courtroom, just behind us. Now, six jurors have been selected to sit on the first criminal trial of the former U.S. president, that is the trial of John -- Donald Trump.

CNN's Zach Cohen has been following.

And, Zach, this seems to be moving fairly quickly. You and I spoke just a few minutes ago. The first three chosen, now six, that's a third of the way to what you need, 12 jurors plus six alternates. Are things picking up in the courtroom there in the jury selection process?

COHEN: Well, Jim, yeah, we've doubled the amount of jurors seated since -- in the last five minutes since we last spoke and again, six of 18 total, that's where we currently stand in terms of the jurors, plus alternates that we need for this case to move forward and trial. And it does make the pace is picking up here. The judge and defense attorneys and prosecutors have made their way through this first batch of potential jurors and, you know, seating six.

[15:45:03]

It will now move to the next pool of about 95 to 100 potential jurors, and we'll do this all again tomorrow.

It looks like -- look, we're also learning a little bit more about the first three jurors who've been seated, including the person who will be the foreperson on Trump's jury.

This man is originally from Ireland. He worked in sales. He has some college education. He's married but doesn't have kids. He reads "The New York Times", "The Daily Mail", which is significant because we know prosecutors and defense attorneys were asking integers a lot about the kind of media they consumed.

The second juror does not -- is oncology nurse who lived with her fiance, native New Yorker, reads "The New York Times" or watch a CNN.

The third juror is a corporate lawyer originally from Morgan, gets his cable -- gets his news from "New York Times", "Wall Street Journal", and Google. He's a younger man, is never married and doesn't have kids.

So, a little bit of a diverse collection of people from even from a variety of different states. But ultimately, those are the three of this first six jurors seated in this case.

But I want to know, too, Jim, that we've made it through this process and seating six jurors, Trumps legal team only has four of their ten preemptive strikes left after narrowing down the first pool of potential jurors to get to the point where we are right now. You know, that could be significant considering the fact that we still have to see triple or double that number going forward in the next day or two. SCIUTTO: Listen, you look at that list there. It's a shortlist, unfinished at this point, but a cross-section of this country, a nurse, an Irish immigrant someone married -- anyway, you see quite a variety and that's the nature of how these juries are selected and meant to be.

Zach Cohen, thanks so much.

I do want to go back to Jeff Swartz, former Florida judge, professor of law at Cooley Law School.

Wow. So six in -- on the first day in effect where they -- where they've been making selections here.

It seems to be moving more quickly than many expected.

SWARTZ: Well, there's a couple of things going on here and I'm not sure in New York with the there have been in most jurisdictions, the judge will look at both sides when they have 12 jurors and say, is the jury acceptable as it presently constituted? That'll be done in a sidebar. Is at that point, if there's any peremptories left for a party, they may be permitted to back strike (ph).

SCIUTTO: Right.

SWARTZ: In other words, someone who has acceptable for, they will go to someone they challenged cause. When they run out of peremptories, it's really possible that Trumps going to ask for more peremptory and to protect his record. Merchan may just go ahead and give him a few, but he has to do the same thing to state.

SCIUTTO: Interesting.

SWARTZ: So it's not really over until it's over, okay? That's kind of the best way to put it.

SCIUTTO: Understood. There could be more wrinkles nature of the court system, right?

SWARTZ: Yeah.

SCIUTTO: Jeff Swartz, thanks so much.

SWARTZ: You bet. You're welcome.

SCIUTTO: Don't mess with the Swifties. Will ticketing giant Live Nation have to face the music? Why the Justice Department may be listening to some angry Taylor Swift fans.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[15:51:11]

SCIUTTO: Live Nation, the parent company of Ticketmaster, could be facing major legal consequences soon. According to "The Wall Street Journal", the Justice Department is planning to file an antitrust lawsuit against the entertainment giant. Live Nation faced major scrutiny in 2022 for the way they handled Taylor Swift's Eras Tour pre-sale.

CNN's Elizabeth Wagmeister has more of this reporting.

Elizabeth, this be quite a case, do we know where it stands?

ELIZABETH WAGMEISTER, CNN REPORTER: We don't know where it stands now, but what we do know is that per this report in "The Wall Street Journal", the DOJ is preparing an antitrust suit against Live Nation, which in 2010, merged with Ticketmaster.

So, now, critics say that there is this huge monopoly over the industry. Ticketmaster is the biggest ticketing service in the country. And as we remember with Taylor Swift, the ticket prices were so high and Ticketmaster shutdown back in 2022, causing even Taylor so to speak out against it.

Then there was a hearing in early 2023 that was quite contentious with the head of Live Nation speaking there. And this was one of those rare occasions that brought Republicans and Democrats together all saying that we've got to stop this monopolization over the industry.

Now, Jim, we have reached out to both Live Nation and the DOJ, have not heard back on this potential pending suit, but here's what Ticketmaster told "The Wall Street Journal". They say, quote, Ticketmaster has more competition today than it has ever had in the deal terms with venue show, it has nothing close to monopoly power.

Obviously, critics think otherwise. So, a lot more to come and well see where this goes.

SCIUTTO: Critics and some customers, too. Elizabeth Wagmeister, thanks so much

And still to come, feeling sleep deprived. Well, you're not alone.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[15:55:45]

SCIUTTO: Before we go sleep need a cup of coffee? You're not alone. In a new Gallup poll, only 26 percent of Americans say they are getting at least eight hours of sleep, 57 percent of Americans said that they would feel a lot better if they got more sleep. I can relate to that. Only 42 percent they get as much sleep as they need.

The results are a nearly complete reversal of the 2013 Gallup poll when 56 percent of Americans said they got the amount of sleep they needed.

And more bad news, Gallup found the number of Americans who are stressed has increased over the past 30 years. And not surprisingly, stress can impact sleep quality.

Thanks so much for joining me today. I'm Jim Sciutto in New York. "QUEST MEANS BUSINESS" is up next. And I hope you and me get a good

night sleep.