Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Newsroom

CNN International: Second Day Of Testimony Wraps In Trump Hush Money Trial; College Students Across America Protest War In Gaza; Biden Campaigns In Florida, As Trump Is In Court; Ukraine Aid Clears Senate Filibuster, On Track For Final Passage; Supreme Court To Decide If Trump Has Immunity In Special Counsel Election Interference Case; The Message From 15 Billion Miles Away. Aired 3-4p ET

Aired April 23, 2024 - 15:00   ET

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

[15:00:33]

JIM SCIUTTO, CNN INTERNATIONAL HOST: It's 8:00 p.m. in London, 10:00 p.m. in Moscow, 3:00 p.m. in Tampa, Florida, 3:00 p.m. here in New York City.

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 of Manhattan courthouse where the second day of testimony in the trial of former President Donald Trump has now ended today. On the stand, the man who called himself, the eyes and ears of Trump's 2016 presidential campaign. David Pecker, former CEO of the company behind the "National Enquirer" tabloid, recounted what he called an agreement among friends during the campaign that went something like this: run good stories about Trump, run bad stories about his opponents. And bury every Trump scandal.

Here's how Pecker put it, quote, Donald Trump and Michael, that is Michael Cohen. They asked me, what can I do? And what my magazines could do to help the campaign? I said I would be your eyes and ears. I think it was a mutual benefit. It would help his campaign and it would also help me.

That deal is critical to the prosecution's case, setting up how and why Trump would have paid to cover up an alleged affair with Stormy Daniels, illegally falsifying business records in the process. And we should note, all that came after Judge Juan Merchan spent the morning on another key question. And that is whether Trump's attacks on Michael Cohen are likely witness protected political speech by a man running for the highest office, or are they violations of his gag order?

We do not yet have a decision from the judge on that question.

With me now to break down today's events is CNN's Katelyn Polantz.

So, Katelyn, tell us more about Pecker's testimony. I think we should take a moment to describe how remarkable this is, because Pecker was a friend and ally of Trumps for years, and the allegation here. And also as described by Pecker on the bench, was they had they had an agreement in effect, not just kill the Stormy Daniels story, but kill multiple negative stories about Trump.

KATELYN POLANTZ, CNN SENIOR CRIME AND JUSTICE REPORTER: Yeah, David Pecker, the person who was in charge of American Media Incorporated, publisher of the "National Enquirer" had a relationship with Donald Trump going back to the 1980s. They were friends. They were in touch.

And then the relationship changed. It changed in 2015 when Donald Trump started looking to the presidency, wanting to campaign as a candidate for the Republican nomination. At that time, they started to be in contact much more frequently. Donald Trump's personal fixer, attorney Michael Cohen was also in touch with David Pecker and the folks at the "National Enquirer" much more frequently at that point.

And there was a meeting in August of 2015 that prosecutors had David Pecker testify about at that meeting. That's when David Pecker says he told them, he would be the eyes and ears for the campaign. He would find ways to take negative stories about Donald Trump off the market. So they wouldn't be told publicly the way to do this was purchasing the rights of peoples stories who wanted to come out and say something salacious about Donald Trump, in this case, about alleged relationships are affairs with women and the "National Enquirer", David Pecker signing off would find ways to either have the publication pay for those stories and bury them, or let Michael Cohen know those stories were out there and then have a way to keep them silent.

One of the things Michael Cohen was telling David Pecker at the time, as he described, two of these catch-and-kill schemes, the boss, as in Donald Trump, would be very pleased and David Pecker also told the jury under oath, I made the decision to purchase one of these stories because of the potential embarrassment it would have to the campaign and to Mr. Trump, a key point the prosecutors want to get it across.

SCIUTTO: Another key point and this from Pecker's testimony, him saying that Trump was frugal and that Trump was highly involved in reviewing these payments, which is also central to the prosecutors case because his defense attorneys, Trump's defense attorneys have tried to put some distance between him and any of these payments, saying that these were just were keeping issues, not something in effect that Trump was keeping track of. Pecker said quite the opposite.

POLANTZ: Yeah, Jim, I'm glad you bring that up because this is how these witness testimony moments are going to go.

[15:05:03]

There will be building blocks put in place that are going to come back to be important legally, or as other witnesses tell the story of Donald Trump and the alleged falsification of business records related to Stormy Daniels. In the instance you're talking about, David Pecker testified not only that Trump was frugal, but the he witnessed Donald Trump having an assistant bring him an invoice and checks to sign, and Trump personally reviewed it, looked at the check and signed it. That is important because prosecutors later are very likely going to

want to show the jury that Donald Trump was personally involved in signing off on payments being made to Stormy Daniels and was part of that scheme, that it wasn't just Michael Cohen, his personal attorney, doing whatever his thought Trump would need the Trump was part of it.

So, David Pecker's testimony, important on a lot of different fronts in establishing this case as the very first witness to take the stand.

SCIUTTO: Yeah, close associate of a former president, in effect, turning states evidence here.

Katelyn Polantz, thanks so much.

So, for more analysis, I'm joined now by defense attorney Misty Marris and Jeff Swartz, former Florida judge, professor of law at Cooley Law School.

Good to have you both here.

Perhaps I could begin with you, Misty Marris. Given that your defense attorney, if you were sitting next to Donald Trump today and listening to Pecker's testimony against him as prosecutors attempt to establish this pattern of catch and kill, going back to 2016, would you feel in a strong position today or in a weak one?

MISTY MARRIS, ATTORNEY: Well, Jim, you can see why Pecker was the first to take the stand strategically from the prosecution. Because it's setting forth a lot of what we heard as the prosecutions themes in their opening and specifically this idea of a conspiracy that it's Pecker, Michael Cohen, and Donald Trump were all involved in this catch and kill scheme, ultimately leading to the falsification of business documents to the point Katelyn made.

What the defense is trying to do is remove Donald Trump from that process. They're saying this is 34 pieces of paper. He's not the one who's involved in these bookkeeping issues. And Pecker's testimony tends to undercut that. From a defense perspective, though we know on cross-examination, they're going to talk about a non-prosecution deal that Pecker has and how that he's got a self-interest in his testimony, complying with what the prosecution wants them to say.

So that's the flip side. And what I would be expecting to hear from the defense regarding the testimony.

SCIUTTO: Jeff, tell us beyond the existence as prosecutors allege of this scheme, tell us what the law is or laws that they will argue were violated by this game.

JEFF SWARTZ, PROFESSOR, COOLEY LAW SCHOOL: Well, it was interesting that during the opening statement, I think that the prosecution gave away one of the charges that I think they're going to be claiming was a felony, and that is was a conspiracy between these three people to violate New York election laws, and maybe federal election laws.

It doesn't matter that Pecker said that what he did was legal. You can do something that's legal, that's in the furtherance of a conspiracy. The perfect example is that I asked you, Jim, to go out and buy a car. So I can go rob a bank. Misty drives the car and I go in and rob the bank. You didn't do anything illegal. But the truth of the matter is you did something in furtherance of the conspiracy.

And I think that that's one of the things that they're going to be pushing for that came right out of the prosecutors mouth. And the substantiation of that poorly came through, through Mr. Pecker today.

SCIUTTO: So, Misty Marris, to that point as a defense attorney, how would you defend against that charge, that the violation of New York and potentially federal election law.

MARRIS: So there's a couple of different arguments. First, remember, in order for this to be successful for prosecutors, if the falsification documents in furtherance of another crime and it's going to be imperative that the prosecutors establish what that other crime is. And these are all great points.

Is it federal election laws, state election laws? We know that today, there was a specific election law reference 17-152 relating to the conspiracy to promote or prevent election through unlawful means. It's establishing what that unlawful means is though and parsing that out for the jury.

And I say that because the catch and kill, and the payments and the NDAs, Stormy Daniels, Karen McDougal, and this doorman, they're not illegal on their face. So prosecutors have the onus of showing what the underlying predicate crime is.

I suspect it's going to be campaign finance violations that these were actually electric contributions.

[15:10:00]

And so, the defense is going to have to combat it on that front. What's that predicate crime? And that's what they're going to focus on as they continue to the cross-examination of these witnesses.

SCIUTTO: Jeff, we can expect defense attorneys to question Pecker's credibility by noting the deal he's made with prosecutors here. In terms of Michael Cohen, who is also expected to testify, his credibility, they will likely go after the fact that he has lied before.

I just wonder that's not uncommon I imagine in trials such as this one, where you might have witnesses who either committed crimes in the past or making a deal. Is that the kind of argument that wins in the minds of juries?

SWARTZ: In my experience both as a prosecutor and a defense attorney, that that argument does when if there's corroboration for what the people testified, Jim.

In particular --

SCIUTTO: Right.

SWARTZ: -- one of the arguments that prosecutors make me is that we are witnesses we can't go out and buy witnesses. We can only take witnesses as we find them. And coconspirators are the only ones that know what was said among themselves.

So somebody who is part of the conspiracy that is the agreement that has to be reached and that's one of the elements of conspiracy. It has to be testified to by someone or something that indicates it. Mr. Pecker, even though he got basically a non-prosecution agreement for agreeing to testify in front of the grand jury, provides to them that evidence of an agreement and that will corroborate Michael Cohen's testimony of an agreement, and therefore, you now have three conspirators all agreeing to do the same thing.

Even though Pecker's job was, in fact, legal, it was in furtherance of the conspiracy to interfere with the election or to help Donald Trump with his election in 2016.

SCIUTTO: OK.

The other issue of the day is this quite contentious hearing we had this morning over the question of whether Trump has, as prosecutors say, repeatedly violated a gag order, which prevents him from attacking jurors or witnesses in public.

Misty, the judge seems to be close to running out of patience here. He's got a decision to make now. What's the most likely decision in your view?

And then, Jeff, I'll ask your view as well.

MARRIS: Well, the judge didn't seem to be looking too favorably on Trump's legal team today, saying that they were consistently losing credibility with their arguments to the court because they were essentially arguing that anything that Donald Trump retweets isn't -- isn't violative of the gag order.

So here's where I see this coming down. I think that the judge is going to be very, very careful about treading on First Amendment rights. But when it comes to jurors, when it comes to witnesses, the judge is going to have to set some parameters so we could absolutely see an admonishment and a fine. It's going to fall short of anything more severe than that, but it's got to set the tone that this type of conduct is not going to he tolerated.

SCIUTTO: Excuse me. There's a lot of police activity down here. This is unrelated to the Trump trial as Trump and other constituents today have already left the courtroom, but lots of active courtrooms around us down here in Lower Manhattan.

Jeff, Trump, as he left, he claims this gag order is an assault on his constitutional rights.

Explain in simple terms what expression is allowed and what is not allowed by this gag order. SWARTZ: Well, first of all, we have to understand the First Amendment is not absolute. Like every other amendments in the Bill of Rights, it's based upon a reasonableness standard. In this particular case, there's inherent powers in the court to protect itself, to protect the people that are there, to protect the jurors. And that's what this order is all about.

So therefore, what he has said is you can't go after the jury. You can't go after the witnesses. You can't go after family members of either jury or people who work in the court. That's about all there is.

He can go after the judge if he wants to and he can attack Mr. Bragg, if he wants to, as long as it isn't an actual threat. So that's as far as what the order says.

The real problem here is for the judge is that he doesn't want to go too far. This is not something speaking as a judge, you really want to do. You don't really want to find people in contempt in the middle of a trial. You might do it after the trial is over, but you really don't want to do it in the middle of the trial.

His problem is that Merchan has to control over his courtroom. He cannot allow someone who is under a gag order to basically say we don't -- I don't care what you think, Judge. I'm going to do what I wanted.

I will tell you as a judge, I'm not used to asking people to do things twice.

[15:15:03]

And I'm not used to ordering them to do things twice. Once should be enough. And so therefore, he's got to do something substantial enough to send message.

Now, $1,000 isn't going to do it. I just don't see that happening. I can see him extending the gag order, so it is more precise. For the next time around, he's going to say you are openly defying this, sir, and I cannot allow you in front of my entire country to openly defy me and so therefore, I'm going to do something about it.

I think maybe a night behind bars will wake you up to who's really in charge here.

SCIUTTO: Wow. That would be quite a moment now, as you know, better than me, judge. Judge, I hear you. Judges like to keep control other courtroom. And this judge said last week, I believe, he said this gag order is not a suggestion. It's an order.

Jeff Swartz, Misty Marris, thanks so much to both of you.

MARRIS: Thank you.

SCIUTTO: We will have more on this historic criminal trial later in the program. Still to come this hour as well, college campuses across the U.S. are becoming focal points, emotional ones for protests against the war in Gaza. We're going to take a look next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

SCIUTTO: Welcome back.

There are real tensions at a number of American universities as students protest the war in Gaza. Police moved in last night to clear an encampment at NYU here in New York after dozens were arrested at Yale University. On the West Coast, one campus has been closed after students barricaded themselves inside a building.

Joining me now is Omar Jimenez. He's coming to us from Columbia University at the top end of Manhattan, the epicenter of these protests so far.

Omar, New York's Mayor Eric Adams said, outside agitators are the ones causing problems. And I wonder what you're learning there because when I see what's going on behind you, it seems quite peaceful, although there certainly have been moments when it's gotten very heated.

[15:20:08]

Who's responsible for those moments?

OMAR JIMENEZ, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Yeah. I think there's a combination. I think there are two factors that are important here. One, you touched on that there's a very different dynamic just outside campus at the campus gates versus what is happening on campus as well. Outside campuses where we have seen a lot of the more violent rhetoric in nature, whether in signs or in chance.

What we seeing on-campus as far as tense situations go, has been more along the lines of what someone described to me as political disagreements. Behind me is this encampment that is now in its seventh day here on the campus of Columbia University. It was in its initial few days that the NYPD, the New York police department was called in here to clear out this encampment by Columbia University and its a decision that they are still being criticized for by many in this community, particularly who believe that it was a university that escalated the temperature of these protests by bringing in an outside police force.

Now the university just had a press conference a few moments ago where they said they reiterated that safety of our community is the number one priority, which is what they also said when they moved classroom teachings to hybrid. They also said that Columbia students have the right to protest, but they're not allowed to disrupt campus life or harass and intimidate fellow students and university officials did say that they believe that because of acts of vandalism, harassment, and discrimination that they believe the current protests is in violation of university rules.

Now, they say that they've been meeting with student organizers until 2:00 a.m. this morning trying to, of course, come to some sort of resolution. But the main crux of this particular protest is they want the university to divest in corporations they say are profiting off of Israeli genocide and apartheid. So that is the crux of what they are protesting here. And they are not budging, at least what we've seen so far. And they say they're not moving until it happens.

SCIUTTO: So that's a political point of view and argument they're making there. Where is the university drawing the line now? Because as you noted, when they asked police to come in and remove protesters, I believe the argument at the time was because they were occupying the school property that they appear to be doing that now. But in what appears to be largely peaceful means.

Has the university changed its tactics in effect now?

JIMENEZ: Those are the clues that were looking for now. Look, they have added extra security both on-campus on the outskirts of campus. We have not seen a return, at least a massive police presence force of the New York Police Department into campus, into this particular camp.

So we haven't seen that -- a repeat of that to this point, but that is the major question because they say they're not leaving. As we're learning from the university now, they believe that this campus in violation of the rules. So those are two competing interests there, and both sides don't seem to budge. And so the question is, at what point will a resolution come and what will that resolution actually look like?

Because we're also seeing camp similar like these, and protests like these pop up at campuses now across the country. And so likely, though, whatever gets resolved here will likely have an impact on some of those as well. But, of course, it is -- it is a test that is still yet unproven to this point.

And I should mention, we're just a few weeks away from graduation here, which will likely be another inflection point here on this campus.

SCIUTTO: No question. Schools administrators clearly struggling with how to respond bond to all this.

Omar Jimenez up at Columbia, thanks so much.

So, former President Trump faces trial here in New York at courthouse behind me, President Biden is campaigning in Florida, where he just finished speaking about reproductive rights, central, of course, to those campaign message. One of the strictest abortion bans in the nation will take effect there next week. But voters will have the chance to overturn that banned in November on the ballot, something Democrats hope will help them down the ballot as they draw out Democratic voters.

Camila DeChalus joins me no.

Camila, tell us how President Biden's message today fits into his broader campaign strategy.

CAMILA DECHALUS, CNN WHITE HOUSE REPORTER: Well, abortion rights will play a big role in this upcoming election. And President Biden is hoping that by focusing on this issue, that it will help drive voter turnout and really prove the point of why he's committed to really protecting and preserving abortion rights. Take a quick listen to what Biden had to say just earlier today.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JOE BIDEN, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: For 50 years, the court rule that there was a fundamental constitutional right to privacy. But two years ago, that was taken away.

[15:25:01]

Let's be real clear, there's one person responsible with this nightmare, and he's acknowledged and he brags about it, Donald Trump. Now, Trump says law is, quote, working the way it's supposed to. Trump goes on to say individual state laws are working, his words, brilliantly -- brilliantly.

It's a six-week ban in Florida. It's really brilliant, ain't it?

(END VIDEO CLIP)

DECHALUS: Now, Jim, I've spoken to several campaign advisers to Biden and they say that abortion rights is going to play a really big issue, a really big role in this upcoming election cycle.

And Biden really wants to make this case when he's out on the campaign trail to voters about his commitment to preserving abortion rights and drawing that stark contrast between him and the former president. And really making a strong case of why Trump is not best suited to govern the country for a second term. And why Biden is better suited for the role.

SCIUTTO: Camila DeChalus, thanks so much.

Biden's trip to the Sunshine State comes as it joins a growing list of states with, as we noted, very strict abortion bans. That includes two states that Biden one in 2020, Arizona, and Georgia, and two states, North Carolina and Florida. The Biden administration hopes at least could be put in play in part because of the issue of abortion rights.

Florida is one of a number of states that could have a ballot measure to reinstate or enshrine abortion rights in the state law. That list also includes the swing states of Arizona and Nevada.

Joining me now, CNN senior political analyst, Mark Preston, on this.

And, Mark, it's not just part of the president's message here, right? These ballot measures that you see you in Florida, you see an Arizona and Nevada, Democrats hope well mobilize Democratic voters who then when they're voting for that ballot initiative, also vote down-ballot for Democrats.

And I wonder, in your view, you've covered a lot of campaigns, is that a substantial strategy? MARK PRESTON, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL ANALYST: Well, it's certainly part

of a potentially winning strategy because what we're seeing in those ballot initiatives, Jim, is not only an incredible amount of money that's going to be poured in to states like Florida to try to get these initiatives passed, to try to overturn this six-week law that will go in this six-week ban that will go into law on May 1st.

But it's not just the money. It's the people on the ground that you're going to see knocking on doors. I'm guaranteeing, you will see the likes the NARAL, Planned Parenthood, these big national organizations spend an incredible amount of money in states like Florida to try to turn this over. And by doing so, Jim, it only helps Joe Biden because it's the same set of voters, folks who are going to vote or to try to overturn the six-week ban in Florida. The same folks who are going to vote but for Joe Biden in November.

SCIUTTO: And listen, we've seen this issue bring out voters, even in red states, right? In deeply red states during some of the votes in the last couple of years. I wonder what effect this has not just on the presidential race, but potentially helping determine the makeup of Congress.

PRESTON: Yeah, you're talking coattails, right? I mean, and that's absolutely right because it becomes a domino effect. A lot of money, a lot of people go in to this issue into a certain state, not only are they focusing on that issue but its going to help Joe Biden rise up and at the same time, you know, where do they say about rising tide lifts all boats? Well, it could be some of these congressional races that are taking place in Florida, as well -- as well as some of these other states.

You know, what's interesting about the abortion issue, Jim, a poll shows that 50 percent of Americans acknowledged that this election is really going to be hinging upon abortion rights. At the same time, you're looking at about half of Americans, a little bit more than half of Americans would like to see abortion enshrined in the federal law, abortion rights enshrined in federal law.

Now, most of that support does come from Democrats, about three quarters, and only about 25 percent of Republicans but I will tell you the tacticians, the political tacticians here in Washington, those across the country. The Republicans certainly are looking at the abortion issue with something that they have to fight against in order to not only try to win back the White House, but to your point, hold onto the House of Representatives, try to win back the Senate.

SCIUTTO: Yeah. I mean, I saw in the Arizona race, for instance, that after that 1864 law became law in the state of Arizona, that a lot of folks move that raised from a toss up to lean Democrat. So while you have Biden campaigning specifically, particularly here on this issue of reproductive rights, Trump, of course, he's been in a courtroom who's back in there today behind me. Tell us what a handicap that is for his campaign, just in terms of campaigning.

[15:30:02] Because our reporters, our CNN reporters who cover Trump, fact check him a bit, have said, well actually, he's got a lot of days in the week where he can still be out on the campaign trail and even when he was not in court, he wasn't on the campaign trail most days?

PRESTON: No, he wasn't, and I think that's worth noting. You know, he talks about the fact that, you know, he's being kept in New York four days out of the week and that's not necessarily true in the sense that he doesn't necessarily go campaigning every day, you know, his campaign rallies happen or tend to happen on Saturday nights. He does these big, these big events and we should note sometimes in states that will not decide what the -- what the outcome of the election is going to be in November. He goes to states like Alabama, for instance, which the Democrats have no chance of winning. But its good for him because he shows up at these rallies were lots of people come out in the show adulation to him.

The reality is, for Donald Trump right now, is that I don't think this hurts him. It certainly helps him with his base where it does where it does hurt him is that it starts to chip away at any support that he may have from women voters, particularly those independent voters who live in some of the states that you and I talk about ad nauseam. And that includes states like Arizona, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, and Michigan, states like that were the election is going to be won or lost.

I mean, as we know, it was a very close margin of victory for Joe Biden the last time around. And we're looking at the selection to be very close again.

SCIUTTO: Yeah. And is it -- is conviction the standard and effect because there's some conventional wisdom that well, if he's convicted, that might have an impact. Otherwise -- otherwise, no, or are the details of this case the catch and kill schemes, the various alleged affairs are those damaging in their own right?

PRESTON: In the number of cases, Jim, that we see the president currently faces, this is probably one that is not going to hurt him as bad politically as potentially what the others want. I mean, the other cases are talking about trying to overthrow the government or to, or holding onto classified documents and also showing them around to people as part of a game.

This is more about a guy cheats on his wife. Does he -- does he give money to one of his colleagues to try to pay off the woman, so she doesn't talk about it? Is that illegal? No. But is the business part of it of hiding expenses illegal? That is kind -- that this is a tough argument, I think to make to people across the country when there's so many other things going on right now.

SCIUTTO: Well, we'll know. We'll know when the voters vote.

Mark Preston, thanks so much.

PRESTON: Thanks, Jim. SCIUTTO: And still to come to this hour, on Capitol Hill, the Senate is ready to pass critically needed aid for Ukraine? How quickly can that aid get to the battlefield? Will there be any roadblocks in the Senate? We're going to take a look, next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[15:36:21]

SCIUTTO: Welcome back.

In Washington, the Senate is on track now to pass a $95 billion package that includes critically needed military assistance for Ukraine. Just moments ago, the Senate voted overwhelmingly to end debate on the bill, to proceed to a final vote this week. At that point, it will go onto the president's desk where he will sign it. The question now is once that money is finally approved, how quickly can the aid itself in the form of ammunition, equipment, new weapon systems as well reach Ukrainians on the battlefield?

CNN's Natasha Bertrand is at the Pentagon.

And, Natasha, I know that the U.S. has a lot of this ready to go. Do we have a sense of how quickly once the president's signature is on this bill, that it gets to Ukrainian forces? Walk us through the timeline.

NATASHA BERTRAND, CNN PENTAGON CORRESPONDENT: Well, Jim, Pentagon Press Secretary Pat Ryder, he actually previewed some of this today and he said that once that bill is signed, once the president has signed it into law, than it can actually be moved into Ukraine within days.

And that is because so much of this equipment is already being moved and prepositioned into places like Poland and Germany to allow it to then be transported into Ukraine very quickly because as you have noticed, and as we have reported, the U.S. has become increasingly dire in its rhetoric about how Ukraine is faring in this war, and, you know, really urging lawmakers to pass the supplemental and pass it quickly because the Ukrainians need additional air defenses, additional artillery to be able to fend off the Russians.

And CIA Director Bill Burns actually said last week in testimony that if Ukraine does not get this much needed U.S. support quickly than they could actually lose the war to Russia by the end of this year. So, the Pentagon says that they can move this very quickly into theater.

And we are getting a bit for information today about what this aid package is actually going to look like once that supplemental funding is passed. We're told by sources that its going to be worth about $1 billion, which is quite a bit more than the last aid package that we saw from the Pentagon last month, which was only worth about $300 million because they were scrounging together all of the money they really had left from different cost savings initiatives from throughout the department. It's also going to include, we're told, according to sources that, you

know, officials have told lawmakers that it could include these long- range missiles that Ukraine has been asking for, for so long now, missiles that can range out to about 190 miles, as opposed to the ones that the U.S. has already provided them, which only range out to about 100 miles.

So a very significant aid package could be coming here. But, of course, this final hurdle is just having it get to the president's desk and getting his signature, Jim.

SCIUTTO: That's right. Pentagon put those limits on concerned about giving them weapons to strike inside Russian territory.

Natasha Bertrand, thanks so much from the Pentagon.

It has been one year and 25 days now since Russia began the wrongful detention of "Wall Street Journal" reporter Evan Gershkovich. And today, a court in Moscow denied his latest appeal to end what is his pretrial detention. It means he will remain behind bars now until at least June 30th.

In his appearance today, the 32 year-old reporter was asked in English if he's doing okay, he smiled, gave us a thumbs up. Russian authorities arrested Gershkovich while he was in the country on a reporting trip in March of 2023. They accused him of espionage charges, forcefully denied both by "The Wall Street Journal" and the U.S. government.

The White House slammed today's decision, calling it, quote, a sham process.

[15:40:00]

He's showing enormous strength just to have that smile.

Still to come, in the room where it happens, I'm going to speak to reporter who has been witnessing firsthand the historic criminal trial of Donald Trump. That is next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

SCIUTTO: Back now to our top story, the criminal trial of former President Donald Trump. There are no cameras allowed inside the courtroom to record the arguments and his reaction. But CNN has a great team of reporters that are our eyes and ears inside.

Joining me now is one of them, CNN's Lauren del Valle. She has been in the court since the start of the trial, joins me now.

Lauren, great to have you here to have this vision inside the court room. I wonder if you could describe today Trump's demeanor. Is he engaged?

LAUREN DEL VALLE, CNN PRODUCER: Yeah. So, you know, Trump was fairly subdued today. We were hearing about this gag order about how he has to keep it in line. So I did see him once smirked at David Pecker when he acknowledged him in the courtroom after the prosecutor asked him to identify him. He shook his head one other time when they were discussing this allegation that he had an illegitimate meant love trial that turned out to be false. He didn't like that.

You know, for the most part, his reactions where manifesting in these notes to his attorneys. He's passing them back every time we saw something that that was slightly contentious and we have to guess that was him sharing his opinion.

SCIUTTO: I see when he left the courtroom today and gave his spiel to the cameras as he's been doing on his way in and out, he seemed particularly frustrated. I mean, he was talking at that point about the gag orders specifically.

But have you -- given that you've been there since the beginning, have you noticed his demeanor change over time?

DEL VALLE: Yeah. You know, during jury selection, he was admonished once for audibly giving his opinion when they were screening this juror, who they found posts from that were very anti-Trump.

And he was admonished by Merchan and telling him, you cannot do that kind of a juror.

[15:45:00]

As it's continued and he's been accused of violating this gag order, he seemed to rail again. His attorneys are trying very hard, they're telling the judge that they're trying to comply with that gag order. And it seems like he's trying to.

SCIUTTO: Speaking of patients wearing thin, it struck me that particularly during the hearing this morning regarding the gag order, the judge himself, that his patients was being tested and I wonder how -- how does he run the courtroom in your view?

DEL VALLE: Yeah. You know, I've seen him in many trials. He did the Trump Org tax fraud trial back in '22 that I was at, and he's a generally soft-spoken man. And it seems that he takes it seriously, but occasionally hell raise his voice and he has told Trumps attorneys they're losing their credibility as they continue to fight on Trumps behalf about these things that Merchan rules on and that he says that Trump is violating.

SCIUTTO: Well, take good notes. It's a remarkable seat to have to watch this up-close.

Lauren Del Valle, thanks so much.

Another story we're following, the Manhattan courtroom, not the only one, hearing a case that could decide Trump's fate. The Supreme Court set to hear crucial arguments this week on his broad claims to presidential immunity, which will determine if special counsel Jack Smith's election interference prosecution of Trump can go forward. Our senior Supreme Court analyst and author of nine black robes inside the Supreme Court drive to the right, and its historic consequences. Joan Biskupic here to help us break -- break this down.

So they will hear arguments on Thursday. This is really a crucial question, is it not, before the court?

JOAN BISKUPIC, CNN SENIOR SUPREME COURT ANALYST: It really is, Jim. You know, you're enjoying your time up there in Manhattan, but you're going to have to come back and see what the Supreme Court's going to do on Thursday, because this is really a weighty question here.

And it arises from special counsel Jack Smith on behalf of the Justice Department. These Is four charges of election subversion against the former president -- fraud, obstruction, denial of the right to vote. And the key question here, because of how Donald Trump has tried to defend himself is, is a former president absolutely immune from criminal prosecution for acts, actions that he took while he was in office.

Now this is a completely untested question, Jim. The Supreme Court has in the past said that a president and could be shielded from civil claims after he leaves office. But its never been tested at the high court, whether he could be shielded for the much weightier situation of a criminal preceding.

And so, you know, Jim, lower court judges ruled against Donald Trump saying whatever shield he had from criminal prosecution while in office, criminal immune -- presidential immunity. All dissolved once he left office so what the Supreme Court itself has never said it.

And one last thing I would just mention a little point of history that I'm sure you'll appreciate. Special counsel Jack Smith points to the episode in 1974 when former President Gerald Ford pardoned Richard Nixon after Watergate, and he said that act came against the backdrop of an understanding that Richard Nixon could have been criminally prosecuted for what happened during Watergate, and that's why they had to have the pardon.

SCIUTTO: If you go back to the district court case, Trumps lawyers, they claim quite a broad, almost alarmingly broad immunity right to me the famous exchange they are about if he were to have ordered SEAL Team Six to take out his opponent, his lawyers made the case that well, unless he was impeached and convicted, he could not be charged.

I just wonder, you've covered this court a long time, you know, the legal issues very well. Is this a close call for the Supreme Court, the question before them?

BISKUPIC: Not on the basic question of whether a president should be absolutely immune, because really, Jim, all the precedent is on the side of Jack Smith. What you don't know if they're going to slice it a little narrowly and say, there might be some instances where a president could be immune, for example, from some -- for some actions taken as you would know well, in foreign affairs sphere. But what Jack Smith has argued is even if there's some immunity

somewhere, in special circumstances for a former president, it would not apply here because the charges against Donald Trump are of such severity and they're -- they're in a particular realm, disrupting the peaceful transfer of power that whatever room there might be for some immunity for a former president, it would not apply here.

And you're, of course, referring to the fact that one of the judges on the D.C. Circuit, when this case was heard, asked Trump's counsel, John Sauer, the same man who will argue for the president this Thursday, asked him the kind of immunity you're claiming is quite bold. Would it apply if the president had ordered a member of Seal Team Six to assassinate a rival, and Sauer was kind of in a corner on that.

You know, it'll be interesting to see if another hypothetical like that emerges on Thursday, Jim.

SCIUTTO: Yeah. I mean, he basically answered yes to that question, which is what a moment.

BISKUPIC: Yeah.

SCIUTTO: Biskupic, we know you'll be watching on Thursday, thanks so much as will we.

BISKUPIC: Thanks, Jim.

SCIUTTO: And still to come this hour, how do you fix a problem with a spacecraft that is some 15 billion, that's right, billion miles away from earth? We're going to bring you NASA's creative solution to a cosmic problem. That's next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[15:53:10]

SCIUTTO: Fifteen billion miles, that is nine zeros, by the way, and that's how far NASA's Voyager 1 space probe is now from Earth. Since November, the space probes flight data system was stuck in a loop, sending an indecipherable code back to mission control here on Earth. But now for the first time in five months, NASA has received a coherent message from the 46-year-old spacecraft.

So how did NASA troubleshoot a problem with a spacecraft some 15 billion miles away?

Our resident space expert Kristin Fisher is here to explain.

And, Kristin, this is pretty remarkable. I'm just wondering how they fix this so far away.

KRISTIN FISHER, CNN SPACE AND DEFENSE CORRESPONDENT: Well, Jim, they started the fixed by doing something that you and I are probably really familiar with, essentially they rebooted or restarted the computer, but, you know, that is a lot different to do when you're dealing with something that is 15 billion miles away farther than any human-made object has ever been.

And so, they restarted it, then they did. When I say "they", I'm talking about NASA engineers here. Then they did something called a poke. They poked the spacecraft to try to figure out where exactly there was an issue and they found now the problem with a single chip.

They don't know what exactly is wrong with it. Maybe it's just old and worn out, 46 years old. Maybe it suffered too much radiation from deep space.

But whatever the reason, they located the problem. They were able to move some of the data from that trouble tip to other parts of the spacecraft. And after five months of no communication, Jim, a few days ago, NASA engineers were able to get decipherable code, codes that they could understand back from the Voyager 1 -- Jim.

SCIUTTO: It's so funny that, yeah, just this sort of turn it off, turn it back on solution, which is like I feel like that's what I do, you know, if I can't figure out what -- what's not working.

[15:55:04]

So I'm just curious what does it still sending back all these years later and all these miles away?

FISHER: Well, so there really it's really past the point of being able to send back good images of things like Jupiter, Neptune, Saturn, things like that because it's gone beyond the solar system. It's now an interstellar space.

And so the only thing were rounded is stars and even those stars are really, really far away, Jim. So really now at this point, Voyager 1 and its sister Voyager 2 essentially, the new things, or just the fact that its still alive and still traveling out there, going beyond the heliosphere, which is where all the suns particles exert some type of influence over.

So keep in mind, Jim, these spacecrafts, Voyager 1, Voyager 2, they were only supposed to survive for five years. They've now survived for 46 years. So just that the length, the duration of time that these things have been in space and how far they've traveled that is the data and the research that NASA engineers are continuing to get from it.

SCIUTTO: I hate to say, I'm old enough to remember when that launch, I was a kid, but still, I do remember it and have it still out there.

Kristin Fisher, thanks so much.

And thanks so much to all of you for joining me today. I'm Jim Sciutto here in New York.

"QUEST MEANS BUSINESS" is up next.