Return to Transcripts main page

The Lead with Jake Tapper

Any Moment: Judge May Rule On Whether Trump Violated Gag Order; Tomorrow: Former National Enquirer Boss Resumes Testimony; Tomorrow: U.S. Supreme Court Arguments On Presidential Immunity; New Video Undermines Pentagon Narrative Of Kabul Blast; U.S.-Israeli Hostage Appears In Hamas Video; Shortest-Serving British PM Liz Truss On Future Of Conservatism. Aired 5-6p ET

Aired April 24, 2023 - 17:00   ET

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

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[17:00:41]

JAKE TAPPER, CNN HOST: Welcome to The Lead. I'm Jake Tapper. This hour, the protests erupting at several major U.S. colleges and universities. Moments ago, House Speaker Mike Johnson was at Columbia University calling on that school's president to resign amid demonstrations there.

Plus, a powerful CNN exclusive, never publicly before seen video captured by a U.S. Marines GoPro camera, one that contradicts the Pentagon's official report about the Afghanistan withdrawal. See the footage that undermines what's been said about that horrific airport attack that killed 13 U.S. service members and dozens of Afghans.

And leading this hour, Donald Trump once again blasting the gag order against him, attacking jurors and witnesses and family and staff of the judge and prosecutors in the New York hush money cover up case. Today, Mr. Trump posting on Truth, Social, quote, "The gag order imposed on me, a political candidate running for the highest office in the land, is totally unconstitutional," all caps. "Nothing like this has ever happened before," unquote. Well, I mean, kind of. Those words, just as Judge Juan Merchan is considering whether or not Mr. Trump has violated the gag order and what the punishment should be.

The judge's decision could come any day really, honestly, any minute now. CNN Senior Legal Analyst Elie Honig is here.

So, Elie, thanks so much for being here. We're still waiting on Judge Merchan to issue his ruling on whether or not Trump violated the gag order. How long could this be left unresolved?

ELIE HONIG, CNN SENIOR LEGAL ANALYST: Well, it's up to him, but he's got to move fast. I mean, how much more evidence could he need than this? As the order is pending, Donald Trump is going out and reviolating and reviolating. It would --

TAPPER: You think he did it?

HONIG: Oh, I think he violated -- TAPPER: All 10 of those are -- all 10 of those?

HONIG: I think yes. I think the judge may -- the judge has tended to split the baby, as we say, he may peel off a couple of them and say, this one's a little bit ambiguous. The judge is going to find that he violated the vast majority of those 10, or I think it's 11 now and maybe more pending. I -- if I had to guess, I would guess we will get a ruling tomorrow, earlier before the court day.

TAPPER: So tabloid magnate David Pecker, that's a nice version for what he is, sleaze merchant, more than to say.

HONIG: There you go. Yes.

TAPPER: Former publisher of the National Enquirer, testified for about two and a half hours yesterday. He's been granted an immunity deal, an exchange for his testimony. With what we know of his testimony so far, what he's admitted he did for Trump to help Trump's campaign, in his words, campaign, is the prosecution ringing that immunity deal for all it's worth? Has it been worth it?

HONIG: Yes. I think this is a reasonable grant of immunity by prosecutors. And the calculation you have to make in this situation is, first of all, how bad was the person's conduct? Is this a person who needs to be charged criminally? Sometimes not.

Not -- it's not black and white. Sometimes there's shades of gray. And then second of all, how valuable is the testimony and are we willing to make that trade, that quid pro quo? And to me, what I've seen so far from David Pecker is he's a classic case of immunity because he's involved at the margins. He's not really involved in the actual crime of falsifying the business record.

TAPPER: Falsifying the business records, right.

HONIG: Right? But he's giving them a really solid foundation for their case. He's taking jurors inside that sleazy world and he's setting a really powerful, I think the basic structure of what the jury's going to need to know.

TAPPER: You could actually argue that Pecker is a star witness. Everybody says Michael Cohen is, but Pecker, in terms of what he's revealing, is pretty important.

HONIG: I agree. And I think he's -- I know he's going to have better credibility than Michael Cohen. And here's a case in point. The southern district of New York spent a lot of time with both of them. The Southern District of New York made a decision back two, three years ago to give David Pecker a non-pros because they believed him.

They did not make that decision on Michael Cohen.

TAPPER: Right.

HONIG: They said to the contrary to Michael Cohen's sentencing judge, he was not fully forthcoming. TAPPER: How do you think the defense is going to handle David Pecker?

HONIG: So I think they're going to try a couple things. One, they will attack that very non-prosecution agreement that we've been talking about. They're going to argue this is unfair. Why are you walking free when Donald Trump, they're trying to lock up Donald Trump? And they're going to argue, you are trying to please the prosecutors.

They gave you a sweetheart deal, you're in the palm of their hand. I think the other thing they're going to do, and I don't know how much traction they're going to get, is they're going to try to argue the vast majority of your contacts about this catch and kill were not with Donald Trump. They were with Michael Cohen and he was operating sort off the books. But as you remember, Jake, there were plenty of contacts. Not plenty, but a few contacts between Pecker and Donald Trump.

TAPPER: Yes. Elie, stick around.

While the hush money trial resumes in New York tomorrow, the U.S. Supreme Court is also going to hear arguments tomorrow on whether Trump should get the ultimate Trump card when it comes to some of the most scathing charges against him. The justices are facing a momentous question they have never had to answer before, can a former president be immune from criminal liability for his actions while he was in office? This all stems, of course, from Trump challenging special counsel Jack Smith's federal election subversion case. Let's bring in CNN's Audie Cornish and Joan Biskupic.

[17:05:22]

Joan, do you have any insight into how you think the justices might rule?

JOAN BISKUPIC, CNN SENIOR SUPREME COURT ANALYST: Well, you started off right. This is untested. But back in the 1980s, the justices did rule in a case that involved civil immunity and said that former President Richard Nixon at the time could not have to be liable in a civil claim. But they set aside the weightier question of criminal immunity. And what special counsel Jack Smith argues is that throughout history, there has been a general understanding that presidents could not be completely shielded in criminal cases, which are more serious in nature.

And he points to, for example, a modern precedent of the Watergate, that former President Gerald Ford pardoned Richard Nixon after he was forced out office because of Watergate. And that pardon had a general recognition that Richard Nixon could have been criminally prosecuted.

AUDIE CORNISH, CNN CORRESPONDENT: The act of pardoning means you probably did something wrong.

BISKUPIC: Yes, that there was a recognition for that. But I just want to add just one little caveat here. I think it's a very -- it's a question we have to take seriously. We can't just dismiss it as absurd, even though Donald Trump is asking for something that's quite a lot, absolute immunity. This is a court dominated by conservatives, three of the justices put on by Donald Trump.

And several of these justices have wanted to strengthen presidential authority over the years. Bottom line, though, I do not think that they will going to -- they're going to agree to absolute immunity. And probably, I think in the end, Donald Trump will lose and it will go back for trial.

TAPPER: Although it is interesting, Audie, because Donald Trump's been sitting in that New York courtroom miserable, seething with contempt against the judge, seething with contempt against the DA, Alvin Bragg, as well as his prosecutor, seizing with contempt against the witnesses, Stormy Daniels, Michael Cohen. I wonder he -- what he would give to be in the U.S. Supreme Court tomorrow, instead looking up at the three that he appointed to the court, you know, giving them winks, giving them smiles. I mean, how much do you think he'd rather be there?

CORNISH: I think that the reason why I was even interested in following this in particular is because right in the middle, where were all obsessed with jury selection for the case in Manhattan, he was basically rage posting on Truth Social, specifically about the immunity case. And he had already been upset by the fact that he wasn't able to -- he wasn't granted the ability to go to his son's graduation, et cetera.

TAPPER: Although I don't think he's --

HONIG: I think the judge is punted on that.

CORNISH: Exactly. Exactly.

TAPPER: Has he been to any of his kids' graduation?

CORNISH: But it's the idea that he spent way more time talking about this and was very specific talking about the arguments that his lawyers have been making to the court, saying, just one in particular, if immunity is not granted to a president, every president that leaves office will be immediately indicted by the opposing party. The briefs that they have filed allude to these ideas over and over again. And he was almost already forecasting, hey, this is where everybody should be looking.

TAPPER: And, Elie, you have a new piece in New York magazine saying that even though Trump might not win this particular challenge, the whole idea of presidential immunity, the argument is not as silly as people might think it is. It's not as simple as no man is above the law.

HONIG: Right. There's more to it than that. I agree with Joan, I think the bottom line is Donald Trump will not prevail here, given the facts of this case. But it's important to understand, Donald Trump in his brief to the Supreme Court, he's actually not arguing, we have this term, blanket immunity or absolute immunity, it's a little misleading. He's not arguing I'm automatically immune for everything from noon on January 28, 2017, when I took the oath, until four years later. He was arguing that earlier, but he has, I think, wisely dropped that. Now he's arguing the more limited claim that I'm immune for official acts. And that raises the question that the Supreme Court's going to have to grapple with. Well, were these official acts? Now, I think the factual answer is, hell no, but it may take time to get there.

And what I think is a nightmare scenario for Jack Smith is if the Supreme Court says you can be covered for official acts, like in the civil context, in the Nixon case you talked about, but it's got to go back down to Judge Chutkan, you have to hold fact finding on that.

TAPPER: And, Joan, how might this ruling impact future presidents, do you think?

BISKUPIC: Wildly, because it'll be the very first time the Supreme Court has ever weighed in on this. And one thing I want to mention, not only do we have a bit of an issue on the official acts, I don't think the Supreme Court's going to go there, to tell you the truth. I think they baked it into the question presented. But I'll tell you, Jake --

HONIG: Yes.

BISKUPIC: -- where it could come up is for actions arising from foreign affairs. Jack Smith even dropped a footnote into one of his briefs saying, you know, there are certain circumstances that as commander in chief dealing with foreign powers, there might be some actions taken that could be, you know, perhaps criminally, you know, suspect in ways.

TAPPER: Like, war crimes?

BISKUPIC: But what he says is those are specific instances --

TAPPER: Yes.

BISKUPIC: -- that would not -- are not here. If the president is going to be immune from anything. The one thing he will not be immune from is election subversion.

[17:10:06]

CORNISH: And a footnote some -- more than, I think, a dozen four star generals help file an ambiguous brief, basically saying, look, no, this is not what we want. And they were actually arguing against what the president is saying about potential immunity.

TAPPER: Why?

CORNISH: Well, they're saying -- in fact, they note the threat of authoritarianism around the world. They also talk about the ability to protect elections from candidates who may hold on to whether they have won or lost. These are the kinds of things that are going to resurface in this conversation over the next couple of days. And the thing you pointed out that I'm pretty obsessed with now is the idea of in a court where there are several people who are originalists and are paying attention to, like, how the framers would think about something, how are they going to talk about this? Because obviously the framers weren't into monarchs.

TAPPER: Yes.

CORNISH: And the idea of immunity, to me in every any context here, is going to be something to see how they thread that needle in conversation.

TAPPER: All right, Audie Cornish, Joan Biskupic, Elie Honig, thanks to all of you.

This is going to be the topic of Audie's podcast. Her podcast is called "The Assignment with Audie Cornish." And you can download it anywhere you get your podcast. Is this one up already or is it --

CORNISH: It is.

TAPPER: It's up already. A little early this week.

CORNISH: Yes, and check it out.

TAPPER: All right, it's Audie Cornish Wednesday. And join me tomorrow morning. CNN's going to have special coverage as this U.S. Supreme Court hearing begins. We're live in the morning beginning at 09:00 a.m. Eastern on T.V. or streaming on Max.

And this just in on the breaking news we've been covering, the University of Southern California in Los Angeles says that they are now going to close their gates and they're going to require ID for anyone to get on campus. This is a result of protests igniting there, some of the scuffles and violence and on other college campuses right now. We're going to go back to USC after this.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[17:15:46]

TAPPER: We're following the breaking news as large anti-Israel protests are underway right now across U.S. campuses after weeks of tension over the Israel Hamas war. Texas state troopers are on the scene at the University of Texas at Austin. We're getting reports of, quote, "Tense interactions and physical struggles there." New video shows officers on horseback as a large crowd chants. Local reports say multiple people were detained.

Austin police confirmed they are now helping transport arrested protesters away from the scene. CNN has reporters on the ground at multiple protests. Isabel Rosales is at Brown University in Providence, Rhode Island. Nick Watt is at the University of Southern California in Los Angeles.

Nick, you've seen some physical altercations. What's happening now?

NICK WATT, CNN NATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Well, right now I would say peaceful but passionate. A lot of speakers, a lot of chanting. You know, there is only one solution in to fight a revolution. Resistance is justified.

Now, listen, I know that there are Jewish students on this campus who feel uncomfortable walking around their own campus hearing that. It has been peaceful ever since the security officials really pulled back. Now, we saw some really ugly scenes when they came in, tried to clear this area of tents and when one protester was arrested. As soon as that protester was released, the temperature went way, way down.

But the LAPD has said that they might come in at some point to clear this area. There are dozens of LAPD squad cars waiting just off campus. For now, Jake, it is peaceful. Of course, the tension here heightened by the fact that a young Muslim woman who is supposed to be the valedictorian speaker was last week told she can't speak because of some problematic links from her Instagram. So, passions are high, peaceful for now.

Jake.

TAPPER: Yes. Intifada revolution. Intifada meaning uprising. But to a lot of Jews and Israelis, intifada conjures forth images of Palestinian terrorism in Israel during the first and second Palestinian intifadas.

Isabel, you're at Brown University. Students are just putting up tents there now?

ISABEL ROSALES, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Jake, it rose rather quickly. These tents just coming up since 06:00 a.m. Now there's over 20 of them and over 100 demonstrators here at the principal lawn of the school. And by the way, over here to the left, that brick building, that is the administrative building. So, school officials can hear their chants, can hear the singing.

And look, as this encampment continues to grow here in the last couple of hours, Jake, I also saw university police escorting school officials as they went around the circle of demonstrators. And one by one by one had them scan their IDs on this machine because we know that they are facing disciplinary action. Organizers forwarded to me an e-mail that they got from their student portal, from the student conduct office saying that, yes, there is a case open against them and they're researching what they could face, anything from suspension to the school says expulsion is even possible.

Now to the question of whether police would be invited here on campus, the school says that unlike what we've seen in other campuses, there have been no altercations, no reports of harassment, violence or any of the sort. But said that if things do escalate, if they need to remove this encampment, they would invite officers on campus. Jake.

TAPPER: All right, Isabel Rosales at Brown University in Providence, Rhode Island, Nick Watt at USC in LA, thanks to both of you.

House Speaker Mike Johnson just visited Columbia University in Manhattan, where pro-Palestinian protests have been creating turmoil across the campus for at least the last week. CNN's Erin Burnett is at Columbia University now. And Erin, you just sat down with Speaker Johnson right after his press conference where at times, if not throughout the entire thing, students and protesters were heckling him.

ERIN BURNETT, CNN ANCHOR: Yes. Yes, and you know what, Jake, behind me, this is the tent encampment here at Columbia University that we have sort of seen at the heart of all this. It's peaceful, it's quiet. It's an absolutely gorgeous day. That's how it was when we got here.

But a couple hundred feet away at the steps of the library, that's where the House speaker, along with a delegation of other GOP representatives, many from New York, went to get a press conference. There were hundreds of people there, Jake, just completely swarmed, hundreds, a lot of media, but a lot of students. And it was heckling from start to finish, although not overwhelming the entire time. The speaker was saying that, you know, he thinks that Jewish students are being harassed and this has to stop. He called for the resignation of the university president here at Columbia.

[17:20:13]

And that the chance here, it's interesting what Nick Watt was saying he's seeing at USC, the chants here were free Palestine, which would go up and echo across as they were heckling the speaker. I spoke to him afterwards, Jake, were supposed to do the interview outside. We actually couldn't do that. Security didn't think it was safe because they thought it would literally be rushed by people. So we had to go inside and then they put that building under lockdown for the speaker to do the interview, during which, when I talked to him about free speech and their right to say this, he said that the students here are, Hamas has endorsed what they're doing and that clearly, in his view, makes it illegitimate and not an issue of free speech.

And he said for him very clearly, this is a matter of good and evil. So we'll air the whole interview this evening. But I will say, Jake, the takeaway that I had was sort of an overwhelming number of people who were there. And the speaker and the team, they plowed through it, they stuck with their plan, but it was certainly a lot more than they had anticipated, that's for sure, Jake.

TAPPER: Interesting. Erin Burnett, thank you so much. We're all going to, of course, look for your full interview tonight with Speaker Johnson, "Erin Burnett OutFront." That's right here on CNN, 07:00 Eastern.

Coming up next in The Lead, a must see CNN exclusive, the footage from a U.S. Marines GoPro camera that challenges official Pentagon reports about the Afghanistan withdrawal and the deadly attack at the Kabul airport. Stay with us.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[17:25:53]

TAPPER: Back with our world lead, as the Taliban's rapid takeover in Afghanistan in the year 2021 was in its final days and U.S. forces were scrambling desperately to try to get out, a bomb ripped through crowds of Afghans seeking evacuation at the Kabul airport. One hundred seventy Afghans and 13 U.S. service members were killed. Two Pentagon investigations, the latest of which was released last week, insist that every single person at Abbey Gate who was killed by the blast from the suicide bomber. But new video and eyewitness evidence obtained by CNN calls that into question. CNN's Nick Paton Walsh has this investigation.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Are you guys in the right state of mind?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Yes. Let's go.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Let's go.

NICK PATON WALSH, CNN INTERNATIONAL SECURITY EDITOR (voice-over): This video, not fully seen in public before, reveals brutal facts long denied by the U.S. military.

On August 26, 2021, a moment of acute savagery at the end of America's longest war. Two Pentagon investigations insisted all 170 Afghans and 13 U.S. military who died here were killed by an ISIS bomber and nobody hit by gunfire.

GEN. KENNETH MCKENZIE, COMMANDER, U.S. CENTRAL COMMAND: No definitive proof that anyone was ever hit or killed by gunfire.

PATON WALSH (voice-over): But this new video, which begins outside the airport's Abbey Gate entrance reveals much more shooting after the blast than the Pentagon said. Combined with new accounts to CNN of Marines opening fire and gunshot injuries in Afghan civilians, it challenges the rigor and reliability of the two Pentagon investigations that declared no Afghan civilians were shot dead in the chaotic aftermath.

The bomb detonates. The footage then stops and picks up 3 seconds later.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Holy fuck.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Are you good? You good?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Hey, watch out. Helping (inaudible).

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Tank is not right here. OK. All right. Hey.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I got that on film dude. They're breaking through.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: (Inaudible).

PATON WALSH (voice-over): Many Marines here were young, some on their first deployment.

The gunfire starts. They run for cover. This long burst is about 17 shots bringing us a total of 20. We're tallying shots fired in episodes of fire based on two forensic analyses on screen. You cannot see who is still firing here. And we never see Marines or anyone firing in this video.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Go, go, go.

PATON WALSH (voice-over): Short, controlled bursts in isolation.

The CS gas canister has exploded in the blast, its gas choking this Marine. And in a moment, the total episodes of gunfire you've heard will start being more than the three the Pentagon has said happened.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Hey, you're good.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Still right here.

PATON WALSH (voice-over): The gunfire continues. We leap forward 27 seconds as Afghans, arms raised, run into the airport.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: No, they're just smoking dirt, bro.

PATON WALSH (voice-over): One burst, now another.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Is that the (bleep) TB, bro?

PATON WALSH (voice-over): They wonder if the Taliban, the TB, is shooting. Two marines told us they saw the Taliban just after the blast looking as shocked as they were. Multiple Marines we spoke to who were there said they felt they were under fire. But the Pentagon has insisted for two years no militant gunmen opened fire here. They've said the only shots fired here were two bursts by U.S. marines and one from U.K. troops, once in a big burst from a nearby tower, all bursts near simultaneously.

[17:30:07]

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Get down. Are you good? Hey come here.

WALSH (voice-over): So according to their investigations, we must be hearing marines or the British firing here. Jump forwards nearly two minutes, during which there are three bursts and they're heading outside to help. That's at least 43 shots in 11 episodes of shooting, just short of four minutes of sporadic fire, most of which the Pentagon has said for two years did not happen.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Stretcher.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Stretcher.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Stretcher.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Stretcher.

WALSH (voice-over): This is how terrifying it was for Afghans outside minutes after the blast. Saho (ph) was shooting. For the first time, a Marine eyewitness has come forward and told CNN the first big burst of gunfire at the start of the GoPro video you just saw came from where U.S. Marines who were standing near the blast site. We're using a different voice to hide his identity as he fears reprisals for describing the gunfire.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: It was multiple. There's no doubt about that. It wasn't onesies and twosies. It was a mass volume of gunfire.

WALSH: Down towards the Abbey Gate sniper tower from roughly an area not too far away from where the blast had gone off. That's where you heard the shooting emanate from.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: It would have been around that area, yes.

WALSH: And there were U.S. Marines, right? This was likely emanating from marines on the ground?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Yes.

WALSH: You think they fired into the ground?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I couldn't tell you for certain.

WALSH: But they wouldn't have fired into the air, right?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: No, they would not have fired into the air.

WALSH: Because you had a specific no warning shots order, right?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: It wasn't a direct order, but it was a common understanding. No warning shots. These are kids. They're young. And they've only been taught what they've been taught. Some of these kids have been with the unit for quite literally two, three months prior to deployment.

WALSH (voice-over): We spoke to over 10 other marines anonymously about gunfire. Some felt they were shot at. A couple even said they saw a gunman. But two others stand out who were unable to reach ourselves, both injured, both admitting some memories were fuzzy. But one clear, heard orders to fire, the other that he opened fire himself.

ROMEL FINLEY, BLAST SURVIVOR: I see my platoon sergeant walk past us saying, get back on that wall and shoot back at those mother --. So I'm like, oh, we're in a gunfight, too.

CHRISTIAN SANCHEZ, BLAST SURVIVOR: Like, all I hear is ringing and flashes going on, and then I start hearing snaps. And I started realizing, that's -- dude shooting at me. I just started shooting at the dude.

WALSH (voice-over): Sort of Afghans themselves, 170 of whom died. The Pentagon has insisted all injuries and deaths were from the bomb and its ball bearings. But two years ago, CNN heard significant evidence from 19 eyewitnesses that Afghans were shot and from Afghan medical staff, counting dozens of dead from bullets. Key was, Sayed Ahmadi, head doctor at the Kabul Hospital treating most of the wounded. Back then, he was afraid to speak openly and his account was dismissed by the Pentagon. But now we met him safe with asylum in Finland. He says he and his staff had the expertise to diagnose over 50 dead from gunfire that night.

DR. SAYED AHMADI, FORMER KABUL HOSPITAL DIRECTOR: One hundred seventy people were killed, totally. But the register, what we had, maybe 145.

WALSH: And by your estimation, about half?

AHMADI: More than half of them were killed by gunshot.

WALSH: So when you hear the American investigation say that, you're just wrong and you don't know what you're talking about?

AHMADI: I wonder, I hope one day they ask me or they call me what you saw, like, you came here and asked me, you came to Kabul and asked me about the situation. They never asked me.

WALSH (voice-over): Even though we described the video and our findings in great detail to the Pentagon, they said they would need to examine any new unseen video before they could assess it. They said their first investigation had thoroughly looked at allegations of outgoing fire from U.S. and coalition forces following the blast. They said their review, released earlier this month, focused not on gunfire, but the bomber and events leading up to the blast, but found no new evidence of a complex attack and uncovered no new assertions of outgoing fire, having no materialistic impact on the original investigation.

Investigators have also not interviewed any Afghans for their reports, the Pentagon said. Leaving the question of how hungry for the truth are they.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

WALSH (on camera): Now, Jake, just a sort of reminder of one of the key points here, as you heard from that doctor and his hospital staff's assessment, they believe over 70 of the dead Afghan civilians who came to their facility had gunshot wounds. Now, that's potentially about a third of the people who died in this attack. And so the question is, who fired those shots? And as you heard there, the Pentagon have insisted the only gunmen firing were American or British troops.

[17:35:20]

Now, we've been also trying, obviously, to look at this in terms of the truth and how that can provide some sort of comfort not only for those Afghan families, but also for the 13 Gold Star families as well, the 13 dead American personnel. And since we broadcast that report, we've heard from Republican Congressman from Florida, Mike Waltz, who said that two and a half years later, questions are still emerging.

He says, importantly, I was just briefed last week on the second investigation into the bombing and was told the opposite of this reporting, citing what you just saw. My heart breaks for the 13 Gold Star families who can't get closure or accountability on this tragedy. So even still now, desperate calls for clarity and I think a feeling that the Pentagon haven't yielded potentially all the information they have or haven't searched thoroughly enough into exactly what happened. Jake?

TAPPER: Nick Paton Walsh with some incredible and difficult reporting, thank you so much.

Coming up next, the families tearful plea today after learning American-Israeli hostage Hersh Goldberg-Polin may still be alive. Stay with us.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[17:40:24]

TAPPER: Back with our World Lead, an American-Israeli hostage in Hamas terrorist captivity has appeared in a Hamas hostage video. CNN is only going to show a single still image from the video. It's the first confirmation that Hersh Goldberg-Polin is still alive, the first one that his family has gotten that their son survived the horrific injuries on October 7th that took his left hand. Hersh was kidnapped from the Nova Music Festival on October 7th. He's one of five American hostages in Gaza thought to still be alive. And CNN's Jeremy Diamond is in Jerusalem. Jeremy, we've interviewed Rachel Goldberg, Hersh's mom, on The Lead. Have she or her husband commented on this news?

JEREMY DIAMOND, CNN WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: They have, Jake. And, you know, for 201 days, she and her husband had hoped that their son was alive, but they didn't actually have any proof, any evidence that their son survived October 7th besides one video that showed him quite seriously injured with part of his left hand missing from that attack. And so they say tonight that they are overwhelmed by seeing this video of their son. They are heartened to see him, but concerned, of course, for his well-being. And they're also issuing a grave plea to the people and the countries involved in trying to secure a hostage deal.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JON POLIN, FATHER OF AMERICAN-ISRAELI HOSTAGE: We're here today with a plea to all of the leaders of the parties who have been in negotiating to date that includes Qatar, Egypt, the United States, Hamas and Israel. Be brave, lean in, seize this moment, and get a deal done.

RACHEL GOLDBERG: And, Hersh, if you can hear this, we heard your voice today for the first time in 201 days. And if you can hear us, I am telling you, we are telling you, we love you. Stay strong, survive.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

DIAMOND: And look, Jake, there's no question that Hamas has released this video for propaganda purposes with the aim of trying to influence those negotiations, which for the last couple of weeks have really been at a standstill, backsliding even as Hamas has changed some demands and refused to budge on others. But his family is certainly hoping that this moment can be used to try and advance those negotiations, which are not moving in a positive direction, but are certainly not dead yet. Jake?

TAPPER: Jeremy, the State Department and the United nations are pressing the Israeli government for more information on mass graves discovered at two different hospitals in Gaza after Israeli forces withdrew from those hospitals where they say they were fighting Hamas members. What are Israeli officials saying?

DIAMOND: Well, Jake, Israeli officials are absolutely rejecting these claims being made by folks on the ground in Gaza. They say it is baseless and unfounded that they buried bodies at this hospital in southern Gaza in Khan Younis. They say that corpses at that hospital were indeed examined, they say, to try and identify the bodies of Israeli hostages who were in Gaza and who may have died. But they insist that the bodies that they exhumed were then placed, returned to their place, they say. That's a very different story than the one we're hearing from Gaza's civil defense as well as the families of some of those who were buried at that hospital.

The Gaza Civil Defense say that they found 324 bodies this week. They say that there were signs that their hands were tied, their legs were tied, suggesting that they may have been executed. That's a claim that we cannot independently verify, one that's rejected by the Israeli military. The families, they say that some of these bodies were indeed buried at this hospital, but that they were ultimately when they returned after the withdrawal of Israeli forces, they say those bodies were in a different grave, in a collective grave.

And now the United Nations, of course, is calling for an independent and international investigation, citing what they call a climate of impunity. Jake?

TAPPER: All right. Jeremy Diamond in Jerusalem, thanks so much.

Tomorrow will mark a full six months in office for House Speaker Mike Johnson. My next guest landed in her leadership role only six weeks. My conversation about political chaos in office, next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[17:48:37]

TAPPER: Back with our World Lead, the United States just fortified Ukraine with military aid after months of pushback by hard right Republicans and supporters of the MAGA movement. President Biden signed off on nearly $61 billion in aid for Ukraine, part of the $95 billion package passed by the U.S. Senate last night. Another 26 billion is for Israel and $8 billion for the Indo Pacific. Moments afterward, the Defense Department also announced another $1 billion in weapons and ammunition for Ukraine.

And the Pentagon admitted that President Biden had secretly directed them to send long range oft requested ATACMS missiles in February, a welcome sign to U.S. allies, especially those in Europe, in close proximity to Russian leader Vladimir Putin's ambitions.

Earlier this week, I sat down with the shortest serving British prime minister in world history, Liz Truss. We discussed her new book, "Ten Years to Save the West."

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

TAPPER: Madam Prime Minister, thanks so much for doing this. Really appreciate it.

LIZ TRUSS, FORMER BRITISH PRIME MINISTER: Great pleasure.

TAPPER: So you endorsed former President Donald Trump in an op-ed in "The Wall Street Journal," and you wrote the deep state will attempt to undercut him even more than it did in his first term. And I'm wondering what you mean by that, because a lot of people who use the term deep state sometimes run off into conspiracy theory land. What do you mean?

TRUSS: Well, what I'm talking about is the administrative state, the unelected bureaucrats who work for the government, who work in government agencies. And in my book, "Ten Years to Save the West," what I talk about --

[17:50:07]

TAPPER: Right here.

TRUSS: -- what I talk about is the fact that in both the United Kingdom and the United States, power that used to lie in the hands of democratically elected politicians has been outsourced. And that was one of the big issues I faced in number 10, was actions by the bank of England, actions by the Office of Budget Responsibility, who fundamentally didn't support the policies I was trying to pursue. And that is my concern here in the United States, is that not everybody, if Donald Trump does get elected, is going to back those policies. And I think it's so vital that we revive our economies in the West to be able to take on the authoritarian regimes overseas.

TAPPER: Well, I mean, when he was president, he was able to pass an enormous tax cut. He was able to get a lot of his economic policies through trade policies and such. I didn't see much opposition from the administrative state to that.

TRUSS: Well, it's certainly true that I think the situation is better here in the U.S. than it is in Britain. In the U.S., the president can appoint 3,000 people in the administration. In the UK, it's a hundred people. But what we have seen is we have seen in some government departments in the U.S., things are difficult to get done by conservatives.

TAPPER: So there's been quite a bit of drama here in Washington when it comes to funding Ukraine and Ukraine's ability to beat back the Russian onslaught. This obviously came after months and months of struggle and with some real dissent from some hardline conservatives on Capitol Hill. Do you support aids of Ukraine? Do you support the hardliners in Congress who opposed it?

TRUSS: Well, I very much support backing Ukraine and making sure that Russia is defeated. Because if we don't defeat Russia, if Putin isn't pushed out of Ukraine, first of all, he won't stop at Ukraine. The rest of Europe is under threat. Eastern Europe is under threat. But also, what message would it send to President Xi if Putin is successful? So I do have criticisms of the policy overall. I think we should be providing more long range weapons to Ukraine. I think we should be providing planes to Ukraine to help them do what is needed. But fundamentally, I think it's vital for American interests as well as Europe's interests that Putin does not succeed.

TAPPER: Do you have any advice for our relatively new House Speaker, Mike Johnson?

TRUSS: I don't think I'm best placed to give advice, having been deposed as prime minister. And what I do see is a lot of commonality between what's happening in Britain with the conservative party and the fact that we keep replacing our prime minister on what is happening in the House of Representatives with the speaker being under threat. And what I think is happening in both countries is there is a battle about the future of conservatism and what conservatives stand for. So we are in very difficult times. But I feel that I'm possibly the worst person to advise Speaker Johnson on his position at the moment.

TAPPER: So there have been some rather colorful reviews of your book. "The Times" wrote, to be fair to Prime Minister Truss, it turns out to have been the perfect advertisement for the experience that awaits anyone who reads this confused and confusing account of her journey from obscurity to notoriety. And I'm just wondering that, combined with the head of lettuce and combined with a rather vicious press corps that you have in the U.K., how have you managed to keep your sense of humor about this? Have the insults stung? Was it difficult not to take it personally? How did you deal with it all?

TRUSS: Like, of course it's not nice being personally attacked, but I always feel when people attack me personally or make puerile insults, it's because they don't have a real answer to the arguments I'm making. And the arguments I'm making are that conservatives haven't won the argument for the last few decades. Even though we've been in government in the U.K., we haven't been recently in government in the U.S.

TAPPER: The book also has some fun observations from your time at 10 Downing Street, including dealing with a flea infestation, which I was not aware of before I went to 10 Downing for our interview not long ago. Would you ever want to live there again?

TRUSS: It certainly isn't in many ways, it's a difficult place to live. We had to have the place fumigated because of the fleas. I was constantly itching during my time there. There's also a clock that goes off every 15 minutes. So if you do suffer from insomnia, you're constantly reminded of what time it is. Also, some of the --

TAPPER: It doesn't sound like it makes it very easy for a prime minister.

TRUSS: It's not easy. And I think one of the things I say in my book is the kind of support that the U.S. President would get in terms of medical support is not available to the British prime minister. And that was a huge problem when Boris was in office and had COVID and almost died. You know, there was no medical support in number 10. So even from my brief experience there, I think we should do more to support our prime minister to be able to do the job.

[17:55:23]

TAPPER: All right. Madam Prime Minister, thanks so much for being here.

TRUSS: Great to be on this show.

TAPPER: Really appreciate it.

TRUSS: Thank you.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

TAPPER: And we'll be right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

TAPPER: In our Money Lead, new rules will require airlines to refund passengers with cash, not vouchers, if a passenger has travel trouble. This includes domestic flights delayed by more than three hours or international flights delayed by more than six hours.

In our Sports Lead today, retired NFL standout Reggie Bush is getting his 2005 Heisman Trophy back. The running back voluntarily gave up his award from his days at USC after an NCAA investigation found Bush received several thousand dollars in a vehicle which were not allowed at the time. Bush said the NCAA defamed him and that he was not paid to play football at USC. Now, 2024 college athletes can receive compensation for their name, image and likeness.

[18:00:23]

I'll be back with you tomorrow for CNN's special coverage as the U.S. Supreme Court hears the Donald Trump immunity battle case. We're live in the morning beginning at 09:00 eastern on CNN and streaming on Max. There's another case, too, in Manhattan. We'll cover that, too. Our coverage continues now with Wolf Blitzer in The Situation Room.