Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Newsroom

RFK Jr. Says Doctors Found Dead Parasite in His Brain; U.S. Pausing Shipments of Bombs to Israel?; Stormy Daniels Testimony Resumes Tomorrow. Aired 11-11:30a ET

Aired May 08, 2024 - 11:00   ET

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

[11:00:00]

JIM ACOSTA, CNN HOST: Might this affect somebody's cognitive function, the way their brain functions?

DR. SANJAY GUPTA, CNN CHIEF MEDICAL CORRESPONDENT: Not typically, Jim.

I think there was a couple of things in the article. They said that, could this be causing the brain fogginess? Not typically. You might find it because someone is getting scanned for these symptoms, and then they see this. So that would be considered more of an incidental finding.

And if it's calcified, not causing any inflammation, really, you don't necessarily need to do anything about it. Another thing that was mentioned in the article was mercury poisoning that he talked about...

ACOSTA: Right.

GUPTA: ... saying that he had 10 times the level. That could be more associated with brain fog or memory loss.

But, even then, it's a whole host of symptoms that might be associated with it.

ACOSTA: All right, we knew you were the perfect expert to go to on this, Sanjay. Thanks a lot. Really appreciate it.

And we do want to note RFK Jr. told "The Times" he had recovered from the memory loss and fogginess, had no aftereffects from the parasite, he says. And he said that did not require treatment. "The Times" asked last week if any of Kennedy's health issues could compromise his fitness for the presidency.

And a spokesperson responded -- quote -- "That is a hilarious suggestion, given the competition." That is a quote from the spokesperson.

CNN has reached out to his campaign, have not heard back.

And the next hour of CNN NEWSROOM starts right now.

This morning, court is not in session in Donald Trump's criminal hush money trial, but he's not giving it a rest, lashing out on social media at the prosecution, the judge and yesterday's salacious testimony.

Tomorrow, he will once again face Stormy Daniels, the porn star he allegedly had a sexual encounter with. Yesterday's sordid testimony, part of which the judge admitted was -- quote -- "better left unsaid," clearly irritated the former president, who cursed and shook his head, earning him a harsh rebuke from the bench.

But it was a different story down in Florida, where a federal judge Trump appointed handed him a big win, indefinitely postponing his classified documents case. That means Trump's hush money trial is likely the only one that he will face before the election.

And CNN's Brynn Gingras has the details.

Brynn, let's start with Stormy Daniels' testimony. We're right in the middle of it.

BRYNN GINGRAS, CNN NATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Yes.

ACOSTA: Isn't that right?

So, this is going to start up all over again tomorrow.

GINGRAS: Yes, we're right -- really starting with the cross- examination, when it picks back up tomorrow. That's going to continue.

And, listen, Susan Necheles, Trump's defense attorney, was firing questions off at Stormy Daniels, really trying to chip away at her credibility, insinuating that she had ulterior motives here of making money and really questioning her motives and her story as she was testifying there on the stand.

Let me read one exchange that they had from yesterday.

Susan Necheles says: "Am I correct that you hate President Trump?"

"Yes," Daniels says.

"And you want him to go to jail?" Necheles said.

"I want him to be held accountable."

She admitted that she hates the former president on the stand. Obviously, that could score some points for the defense. So, we will have to see what line of questioning they continue with. We haven't even gotten to yet the center of it, which is the hush money payments, really just tip of the iceberg at this point when it comes to the cross-examination.

Now, before that, the prosecution, as you mentioned, Jim, was laying out the entire story, how she met the president back in 2006, going into great detail about their sexual encounter. Of course, that's something that the president has always denied, denied, denied. And, as you said also, the judge essentially kind of throwing in some objections of his own, saying that it was really going a bit too far. That actually had the defense asking for a mistrial at one point during the trial yesterday. The judge saying, listen, they're not at the point of a mistrial, but admitting there that there was some things that were better left unsaid, and really giving permission to the defense to really bring up those points on cross-examination.

So, we expect to see more of that, but certainly a lot to digest for those jurors yesterday. Jim, we are told from our court reporters inside that they were taking a lot of notes. And that testimony is going to pick back up tomorrow.

ACOSTA: All right, fascinating stuff.

Brynn Gingras, thank you very much.

Joining me now is CNN legal analyst, former chief assistant DA for the Manhattan district attorney's office Karen Friedman Agnifilo.

And, Karen, we should note you're a counsel for a firm that represents Michael Cohen. You have had no contact with Cohen, don't work on his case, and there are no restrictions on what you can say about this case. Want to get that in there.

But, Karen, your main takeaways from this testimony. I mean, what -- what about some of the complaints from the defense about some of the sordid details that were laid out to the jurors? I seem to recall Donald Trump once explaining things as locker room talk.

Well, I mean, if he's explaining things as locker room talk out on the campaign trail, do we expect it to be like Shakespeare in the park in the courtroom when it comes to talking about what went on between him and Stormy Daniels?

[11:05:06]

KAREN FRIEDMAN AGNIFILO, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: Well, interestingly, it wasn't as salacious as I think some people are making it out to be.

I mean, I think she mentioned they had sex and that it was in the missionary position. There was no graphic, detailed descriptions of anything.

But, that being said, the reason the detail was brought out by the prosecution is because they have called her a liar. They have said that this never happened. And so the prosecution brought out lots of details, not just about that, but also what the room looked like, what elevator she took up, who was outside, what he was wearing.

It's all because the level of detail can go towards assessing somebody's credibility on whether it actually happened or not. And so the -- and credibility is obviously always an issue when you're testifying and you swear to tell the truth.

So that's the purpose for bringing it out. So -- but it could have been much more salacious. And

ACOSTA: I wanted to ask you about this, Trump appearing to be agitated during some of Stormy Daniels testimony, and, at one point, the judge, Judge Merchan, admonishing him for cursing, shaking his head during the testimony.

I suppose that's one thing that we're all waiting to see, if the volcano erupts today and he says something that might get him in the crosshairs of this judge. How do you think things are going inside the defense team right now, in terms of how they're feeling about their client today?

FRIEDMAN AGNIFILO: Look, who knows, right? You don't -- nobody knows what goes on in the defense team.

But -- but reports are that he's frustrated. He doesn't think they're being aggressive enough and that they aren't attacking more. And so, if that's the case, they still have a job to do, and they are going to do their best to only ask questions that are relevant, admissible, and not get the judge angry.

But in addition to getting the judge angry, in that admonishment that you just referred to about when Trump was cursing and shaking his head audibly so the jury could hear, the judge used the word that that's contemptuous, so meaning, like...

ACOSTA: Right.

FRIEDMAN AGNIFILO: ... like, tell him to stop...

ACOSTA: Yes.

FRIEDMAN AGNIFILO: ... because that could be -- he could be held in contempt, which is similar to the gag order, which the judge has said he doesn't want to put him in jail, but that he will have no choice if Trump doesn't listen.

And Mr. Blanche, his attorney, assured the judge that he will talk to his client.

ACOSTA: Well -- and so that leads me to this question.

So, if he starts doing this again tomorrow, if she's under cross- examination and she's saying thing -- things that gets under his skin, and he starts to start muttering and whispering expletives and so on, might the judge act?

FRIEDMAN AGNIFILO: He could. He -- he -- he specifically warned Trump in the decision on the gag orders, the two decisions that he rendered where he held him in contempt, the first time nine times, the second time one time.

And he specifically said, look, I don't want to have to do this, but, if I have to, you will leave me with no choice.

ACOSTA: Yes. FRIEDMAN AGNIFILO: And the judge could, for example, put him in jail for an hour or over lunch or for the day. It doesn't have to be for a period of time. And he could do that to send Trump a message that, look, I'm not kidding. I'm serious here.

And so I don't -- the judge does not want to do that, because, look, it would -- it would be very big news. It could appear on everybody's phones as alerts, including the jury.

ACOSTA: Right.

FRIEDMAN AGNIFILO: And this is something he would not want the jury to find out, because it could be prejudicial.

So the judge is going to do that only as a very last resort, for that reason.

ACOSTA: All right, Karen, thank you very much. Appreciate it.

Let's discuss with someone who's worked closely with Donald Trump in the past, former Trump senior White House adviser Omarosa Manigault- Newman.

Omarosa, great to see you, as always.

OMAROSA MANIGAULT-NEWMAN, FORMER WHITE HOUSE SENIOR OFFICIAL: You too.

ACOSTA: And we should note, your time with Trump goes back a long way, all the way back to the first season of "The Apprentice." So -- and you also authored the book "Unhinged," which gave us a real insight account of the Trump White House.

Omarosa, what -- your reaction to all of this, I mean, the judge warning Trump to simmer down and not mutter these expletives in the courtroom. Sound like Trump behavior to you?

MANIGAULT-NEWMAN: It does.

But, on the campaign trail, we used to say, let Trump be Trump. Or even in the White House, we would give him space to express himself. But the courtroom is not the place for his tantrums.

I mean, the way he's behaving is just completely unorthodox. But I'm kind of with the judge in terms of him taking a restrained approach to punishing Donald, because Donald has already calculated the punishment in his campaign strategy.

I believe that he wants to be locked up, even for a short amount of time, so that he could be a martyr and he can use it for fund-raising to advance his narrative that he is being persecuted.

ACOSTA: Yes.

[11:10:00] And what did you think of -- because I seem to remember, Omarosa, you were around during sort of the later days of the 2016 campaign. Maybe it was a whole -- good portion of it -- you can correct me on all of that -- and then the beginning days and months of the Trump White House in 2017.

How -- was there talk of Stormy Daniels going on at that time that you were aware of, that you were party to, that maybe you overheard? How much of a concern was this back during that time?

MANIGAULT-NEWMAN: Well, as you know, Jim, we were mostly consumed with the "Access Hollywood" tape.

ACOSTA: Yes.

MANIGAULT-NEWMAN: So, we weren't even aware that this Stormy Daniels thing was brewing until the headlines started to pop up.

As a campaign matter, we had a woman issue, right? And so this would, of course, be detrimental to him, which is why I believe he did work to silence her and to use this hush money payment to keep it from becoming public.

But, no, we weren't aware, at least in the general campaign, about this hush money payment until it became public to all of us.

ACOSTA: And I did want to ask you, Omarosa.

You wrote in your book that you were offered hush money of sorts after being let go by the Trump White House. And I seem to recall, when I was reporting on the White House during those days, there was talk about staffers being asked to sign NDAs and so on, that they didn't want staffers leaving the White House and talking about what they witnessed behind -- how much of that was going on?

Was there a hush money offer of some sorts to you?

MANIGAULT-NEWMAN: Yes.

As I wrote in my book "Unhinged," certainly, there was an offer from Lara Trump specifically for, I believe it was $20,000 a month, so that I would not talk about the things that I observed or that I experienced on the campaign. And, apparently, this was common practice.

If you look at his financial disclosure reports, there were a lot of people who were not doing -- necessarily doing a substantial amount of work, but they were getting about the same amount that I was offered.

ACOSTA: Hmm.

MANIGAULT-NEWMAN: So, it's very clear to me that this is a pattern of behavior that Donald uses in order to keep silent, along with those NDAs.

ACOSTA: So, when you hear about the details in this case of payments to Stormy Daniels and payments going to Michael Cohen allegedly to cover up the payment to Stormy Daniels, this rings true to you, this sounds like something that Trump and his inner circle might have hatched as a scheme?

MANIGAULT-NEWMAN: It certainly does sound like his M.O.

But I think that one of the things that we're missing is the X-factor, which is Michael Cohen, what we expect to hear from him, and how I believe that many people are underestimating him. Michael knew everything.

ACOSTA: Hmm.

MANIGAULT-NEWMAN: And I truly don't believe that he's disclosed everything that he knows. So the true X-factor in these proceedings will be Michael Cohen's appearance.

ACOSTA: All right, fascinating.

All right, Omarosa, I think, in television, you and I both know that is called a tease. So we will be watching for that.

(LAUGHTER)

ACOSTA: Great to see you, Omarosa. Thanks a lot. Really appreciate it.

MANIGAULT-NEWMAN: Good to see you, Jim.

ACOSTA: All right.

Still ahead this hour: Israel's military offensive in Southern Gaza is now in its second day, just as a U.S. official tells CNN the White House has paused a shipment of large bombs, large munitions to Israel over concerns about civilian casualties. I will speak live with an IDF spokesman.

That's next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[11:17:39]

ACOSTA: The U.S. is turning its warnings over Israeli operations into Gaza -- into Rafah in Gaza into action, holding back a planned shipment of 3,500 weapons to Israel.

A U.S. official says it's because of concerns the weapons could be used in the dense urban area where more than a million civilians are sheltering right now.

I want to bring in Lieutenant Colonel Peter Lerner. He's the spokesman for the Israeli Defense Forces.

Colonel, let me -- let's dive right into this. This move was described by an official to "The Washington Post" as a -- quote -- "shot across the bow" to Israel. That's in terms of holding up or pausing these weapons shipments.

How is that going to affect your operations in Gaza?

LT. COL. PETER LERNER, SPOKESMAN, ISRAELI DEFENSE FORCES: Jim, thanks.

I can say that we are now on the day two of operations in Eastern Rafah, a limited operation against specific locations against Hamas in this area. Our operations are in conjunction with our expectations of a mass evacuation of some 100,000 people that were in that area prior to the operations.

And we didn't start the operation until we'd seen that the evacuation had commenced. So, while I understand that the concerns are raised, we have to understand that the war against Hamas is a legitimate war, a war that has to be conducted. It has to be conducted in accordance to international humanitarian law and the laws of armed conflict.

We maintain that that is what we're doing. But we are determined to get rid of Hamas. Hamas have to go.

ACOSTA: Colonel, an administration official, though, told "The Washington Post" that -- quote -- "Israel should not launch a major ground operation in Rafah, where more than a million people are sheltering with nowhere else to go."

Isn't it true, Colonel, that many of these people have nowhere to go? How can you conduct an operation of that magnitude in an area where people are essentially trapped?

LERNER: Jim, if we have seen anything throughout the course of this war, is that those detractors, like Hamas, that are telling people not to evacuate out of harm's way, or even UNRWA that have -- that said that they will not call on people to evacuate out of harm's way, are not doing any favors to the people of Gaza.

We are in a war against a merciless terrorist organization that has utilized the powers of government to accumulate a huge amount of military force and military capabilities. There are four battalions -- four battalions of Hamas currently in the Rafah area.

[11:20:07]

They just in the last hour or so launched more rockets and mortars towards Israel, towards the Kerem Shalom crossing that we opened today. So, Hamas have to go. In order for us to fulfill our mission of bringing home the 132 remaining hostages, on one hand, and relieving us from Hamas on the other hand, there are only two ways to do it.

Either Hamas unconditionally surrenders, Jim, or we go in with military force. Now, I don't see any way that Hamas is actually going to surrender. So, if you are expecting us to surrender our safety and security to Hamas because they're hiding behind their civilians, then that's an unreasonable expectation.

We have to take the war to Hamas. ACOSTA: Do you have intelligence, do you have information that suggests that that is where you will find leaders of Hamas, in that area where you're planning to conduct this operation and where you're conducting this operation?

LERNER: So, in the last three days, we have seen that there are increased rockets and mortars from the Rafah area specifically towards Kerem Shalom, the main humanitarian crossing between Israel and the Gaza Strip.

Why are Hamas attacking the Kerem Shalom crossing? They want it shut. Why do they want it shut? Because they want more suffering on the people of Gaza. So, I would say, absolutely, there are Hamas leaders, there are Hamas commanders absolutely in the area of Rafah and in the broader area.

Our operations currently are only in the eastern part on the ground. But there are obviously other aerial capabilities that are being conducted throughout the last days, and we continue our war against Hamas.

This is an unfortunate reality. We have just crossed the seven-month threshold of this war, a war that Israel did not ask for, but a war Israel is determined to win, because there's no other alternative.

ACOSTA: Yes, but as you -- but, Colonel, as you know, there are global concerns about the state of the Palestinian civilian population in Gaza, and particularly in that Rafah area.

The World Food Program says that there's famine under way, famine conditions under way in Gaza as we speak. Are you going to wait for those civilians to fully evacuate from that area before you conduct these operations, or are you resigned to the very strong likelihood that civilians will be killed as a part of this?

LERNER: So, I certainly hope not.

Our operations began yesterday morning here in Israel after the evacuation of people from the area designated of the operations, whether it's in the area of the Rafah Crossing or specifically in the eastern parts of the southern -- most southern point of the Gaza Strip.

So that is where our operations are currently focused in a limited operation the ground. But we intend to continue our preparations to taking it further. But, as we did in the last three days, we have called on evacuation. We saw that the evacuation was actually implemented into the areas where we have designated an increased humanitarian zone in the Mawasi area.

And there are people evacuating to there, evacuating to other areas in Khan Yunis, other areas in Deir al Balah. So there are where -- are places where people can go. And, of course, we have to do everything possible in order to...

ACOSTA: But not all of them, right? Isn't that right? But, Colonel, not -- not all of them, and not to a degree where you're going to be able to avoid a pretty large number of civilian casualties. Isn't that right?

LERNER: So, I wouldn't hypothesize.

I'd say what we do and the precautions we go to are unprecedented in the actions of warfare and modern-day warfare. Indeed, the mass evacuation, temporary evacuation of people from combat zones, to some extent, even putting our own force -- forces at risk, because we cede the element of surprise.

So there is a -- of course, a huge responsibility of the war fighters, of our combat forces on the ground, and, of course, as we just showed just two days ago, that people can evacuate. We operate after the evacuation. That's what we did. That's what we have to continue to do.

ACOSTA: And if you conduct this large offensive in Rafah, and yet, at the end of the day, you don't capture leaders of Hamas, won't your stated goals be called into question, that you are not, in fact, on a strategic military path that's going to result in leaders of Hamas being captured, and through the methods that you are utilizing as we speak, that the civilian casualties are coming at a cost, and you're not achieving those objectives that you have laid out?

LERNER: So, what we have seen through the last seven months is that we have dismantled the fighting capabilities of most of Hamas' battalions and brigades and the leadership of their terrorist infrastructure.

[11:25:03]

We have impeded extensively on their ability, on Hamas' ability to govern the Gaza Strip. So I would actually argue that our activities up until now have been successful in achieving that goal.

Of course, there are 132 hostages that need to be brought back home, every single one of them. They -- the hostages are key. They are paramount. They are the reason that the war is absolutely necessary. And the war could be over today if Hamas unconditionally surrendered and let the hostages go.

Until that does happen, we have to continue to push forward. We have to press forward and bring home the hostages and make sure that Hamas can't operate as they did on the 7th of October, as an organized military force. That is what they did.

So, our activities on the ground -- and this is just for your understanding. As we're pushing forward and dismantling, degrading and killing the Hamas terrorists on the ground, it is creating a reality where they cannot operate in an organized manner. It doesn't mean that there won't be individual terrorists.

(CROSSTALK)

ACOSTA: But, Colonel Lerner, you must know, though, that there is tremendous -- there is tremendous condemnation that is coming in from all corners across the world that this -- the cost to the civilian population in Gaza is too high.

You must know that.

LERNER: So...

(CROSSTALK)

ACOSTA: I understand what you're saying. I know what you're saying in terms of taking out leaders of Hamas and achieving these military objectives.

And, of course, what they were responsible for on October 7 is heinous. But don't you think you have reached a point now where -- I mean, when you're hearing this kind of condemnation coming in from all corners across the globe that the price that is being paid by civilians is so high, there's just so much you can do of what you're doing right now?

LERNER: The price the civilians, Israelis and Palestinians, are paying for this war are both horrific and tragic.

There is no magic prescription to wish Hamas away. There is no magic wand that will make them miraculously disappear. If that could happen, that would be the chosen way of operations. Unfortunately, for us to achieve our goals of changing the security reality for Israelis and Palestinians alike, there is only one way that Hamas goes.

And it through -- is through the military action. You don't see them raising a white flag. You see them conducting a counteroffer to a deal that Israel, a generous deal that...

(CROSSTALK)

ACOSTA: The civilians are saying -- the civilians are -- the civilians, folks at the World Food Program, members of Congress here in Washington have essentially been pleading with you to please change these tactics, because the cost to the civilian population is too high.

And Hamas is not coming out waving the white flag, but you are hearing from all...

LERNER: So, are they suggesting that -- are they suggesting that Israel...

(CROSSTALK)

ACOSTA: You're hearing from a lot of people around the world that the suffering is at a point that -- that has just become too much.

LERNER: The suffering on both sides is terrible. The suffering -- the reality on both sides is terrible.

And, indeed, we wish for a peaceful resolution. But, unfortunately, our enemies that are bent on our destruction have no intention on living side by side in peace with Israel. So what should we do, surrender to Hamas and hope they don't do it again, when they promise that they will do it again and again and again, given the chance, or that we should hope that 132 Israelis that are being held by Hamas just are let free?

They're not letting them free. They're not even willing to negotiate. And we have negotiators currently in Cairo that have been sent by the government to Egypt in order to try and create a deal,. But they're not really interested. They're just interested as an organization...

(CROSSTALK)

ACOSTA: But how do you get to the conditions of having a -- how do you get to the conditions of striking a deal if you go into Rafah with the kind of operation that has been reported as being contemplated that results in further horrendous civilian casualties?

How do you get to a deal? Doesn't that get in the way of a deal?

LERNER: So, here's what -- well, I would definitely hope...

ACOSTA: Yes.

LERNER: ... that a deal can be made.

And I think the diplomats have to do -- deal with the diplomacy, whereas the war fighters need to conduct the war effort.

ACOSTA: Yes. OK.

LERNER: Indeed, our ground efforts were only -- we were instructed to operate on the ground in Eastern Rafah, in -- on the outskirts of Rafah, as to say, only after that those attempts had actually been exhausted.

And, therefore, I would say, Hamas can't be trusted. We need to be very skeptic -- skeptical about whatever they are saying. And we need to be -- understand that our operations, if and when we are instructed to broaden the scope of operations in the area of Rafah, will be conducted in a way which enables people to evacuate.

We will continue to work with the international humanitarian organizations to secure both food supplies, medical supplies

[11:30:00]