Return to Transcripts main page

The Lead with Jake Tapper

Jury Selection On Donald Trump's First Day In Court For His Hush Money Trial; Trump's Special Treatment In Court; Israel's War Cabinet Deliberate On How To Respond To Iran's Attacks; Hamas Offers To Release 20 Hostages For Truce; Israel Weighs Response After Iran's Unprecedented Attack; Right Now: House Republicans Discuss Israel, Ukraine Aid; Congressional Leaders At Odds Over Israel Aid. Aired 5-6p ET

Aired April 15, 2024 - 17:00   ET

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

[17:00:00]

JAKE TAPPER, CNN HOST: They said they could not be fair and impartial. The judge ruled that the "Access Hollywood" tape cannot be played when their arguments begin.

He did allow future testimony from Karen McDougal, a former "Playboy" model, Playboy's 1998 Playmate of the Month, who said she had a 10- month affair with Donald Trump, which he denies. All this in the case where prosecutors claimed Mr. Trump falsified business records to cover up hush money payments to adult film star and actress and director Stormy Daniels to keep it away from voters right before the 2016 election. Let's discuss now with two people who know key players in this case.

Stacy Schneider is a Manhattan criminal defense attorney and a former contestant on Trump's TV show "The Apprentice." She has also worked with Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg's office and appeared before Judge Juan Merchan. And Barbara Rez is a former engineer for Trump Construction Projects and author of the book "Tower of Lies: What My 18 Years of Working with Donald Trump Reveals About Him."

Barbara, let's start with you. What do you think Donald Trump's mindset is right now as he sits in court for his very first criminal trial as a former president?

BARBARA RES, FORMER ENGINEER FOR TRUMP CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS: Yeah, I can. Is someone asking me a question?

TAPPER: Yeah, Barbara, can you not hear me?

RES: I can hear you, but I can't see anything.

TAPPER: Okay, let's go to Stacy. Stacy, you have worked with both Trump and Judge Merchan. Trump has already recently called the judge crooked. How do you expect this will all play out in the coming weeks as those two sit in the same courtroom?

STACY SCHNEIDER, CRIMINAL DEFENSE ATTORNEY: So, I think Judge Merchan, and thank you for having me, Jake. I think Judge Merchan has complete control of his courtroom. He is known to have control of his courtroom. And a very interesting thing about him is that on the Wednesdays when this case will not be heard, that's the one day they have a break, Judge Merchan actually runs the mental health felony part of Manhattan Courthouse.

So, if there's any judge that's used to an outburst in court who can handle that perfectly, that would be Judge Merchan. So, I think Trump is going to control himself a lot more than he did in his civil trial in the other courthouses where he showed up in Manhattan.

TAPPER: What do you see, Stacy, as Donald Trump's best defenses and biggest weaknesses in this specific case?

Schneider: Okay, well, the D.A. is really engaging in a novel prosecution here. They've charged him with the felony version of falsifying business records. As a misdemeanor, it's easy to prove. All you have to do is put false information in the records of a New York enterprise.

This case goes a step further in that the allegations of the payoffs to Stormy Daniels, with whom Trump is alleged to have had this affair, the adult film star, the D.A.'s office is saying this is an additional crime because those payoffs and the cover-up of the payoffs in his business records were used to influence both the state and federal election. That's election interference.

So, this is almost like a dual crime prosecution within one charge. So, Trump's best defense, I think, is saying, I am an international celebrity. I was before I became president. And if another woman had come forward or another person came forward looking for money from me, it's the cost of doing business. I would have paid this person to go away anyway.

So, in order for the D.A.'s office to prove intent, and that's the problem with the D.A.'s case, is actually proving Trump's intent. They have to show that Trump intended to interfere with the election. They claim that they have phone calls of conversations between Michael Cohen, Trump's attorney, who allegedly made these payoffs, or who pled guilty, actually, not allegedly, but pled guilty to making the payoffs to Stormy Daniels, and Trump planning this out. So, both sides have weaknesses and both sides have strengths.

TAPPER: Do you think, Stacy, it's going to be difficult for Donald Trump to get an impartial jury in Manhattan where voters are overwhelmingly Democratic, capital D, and voted for Joe Biden?

Schneider: I wouldn't use the word difficult, but I would use the word painstaking and lengthy. I think after today, this jury selection process has already shown us with half of the panel dismissed. There are 100 jurors who get brought into the courtroom at large and who run through the juror questionnaire panel, and they get picked out, sort of, for certain reasons, like they can't serve, they're not available to serve, they don't want to serve, they're biased.

[17:05:00] There are going to be a lot of people in Manhattan, by nature, this is not a pro-Trump city, who are going to be against Trump. But in any case, on any issue that comes up in court, whether it's drug use, there are always going to be people with an opinion. And they will find enough jurors to serve, they need 12 and 6 alternates, they will find enough people to come to court, listen to the evidence, put any biases or feelings they have aside, and give a fair verdict. So, it just takes time.

TAPPER: All right, Barbara, I'm told that we have your audio and video back. Sorry about that. So let me ask you, Barbara, Trump is essentially being accused of trying to cover up hush money payments to silence an extramarital girlfriend about an alleged affair. When you worked with Trump, did you ever see any indication that he would be involved in any sort of cover-up or paying somebody to be quiet?

RES: Well, you know, to the extent that he used to go out with Marla Maples and always had a beard there, that was just his own personal thing and, you know, his deal with Ivana. Frankly, I think that he's covering -- he covered this up. Um, he would love not to have covered it up. He would have loved to say, hey, I'm going out with this porno star. But intentionally, he knew that that could hurt him.

And that was the reason for the payment. And there's no other reason for the payment. He said something about his wife would be upset or --

TAPPER: Yeah.

RES: I don't buy it.

TAPPER: Pool (ph) reports, Barbara, the reporters in the room say that Trump turned around and smirked at potential jurors as he was introduced as the defendant. Do you think that's part of an attempt to charm them? What do you think that's about?

RES: I think it's his way of showing how confident he is and how tough he is. It's his persona and he's carrying it through. He's going to carry the suits through the trial.

TAPPER: All right, Barbara Res and Stacy Schneider --

RES: I don't think --

TAPPER: -- thanks to both of you. Joining me now to discuss former Trump attorney Jim Trusty. He left the Trump legal team after the former president was indicted in the classified documents case. Jim, thanks so much for being here. So, you worked for Donald Trump. What do you think he's saying to his lawyers right now after this first day of trial? The rulings seem to go somewhat his way, somewhat the other way.

JIM TRUSTY, DONALD TRUMP'S FORMER ATTORNEY: Yeah, look, I think the biggest conversation is about, you know, about the process of jury selection. You know, it is a challenge in today's world where the jurors want, you know, unlike history, a lot of them want to get on a jury like this. They want to have that opportunity to be a celebrity juror at some

point, to go on TV and announce all the things that are supposedly secret by way of deliberations. And I think that makes a real challenge for Trump's attorneys to try to ferret out which ones are sleepers, which ones are guiding their answers to the court's questions in a way where they say, well, you know, I know I voted Democratic for the last 52 years, but I think I could be fair.

You know, it's a very easy task to kind of shade your qualifying answers in a way where you might get selected, or at least you cut into the number of strikes that President Trump's team has to get rid of jurors without cause. So, I think the challenge is to really keep an eye on whether the judge tries to rehabilitate jurors that might be unfair to President Trump, or whether he's very quick to dismiss them as long as they say something about being biased.

And that's, you know, it's not fun watching jury selection, but that's the challenge for the next few days is to figure out what's the mode of interrogation, what's the mode of disqualification that's taking place.

TAPPER: He appears to have been on pretty good behavior today, keeping quiet when he needed to keep quiet, answering the judge. In fact, Maggie Haberman says, she was in the courtroom, she says he even appeared to nod off at one point, which maybe many of our viewers can find relatable if you've ever been to court. But do you think his attorneys are worried that he will ultimately get in his own way by acting out in court, as he did, for instance, during the E. Jean Carroll case?

TRUSTY: Yeah, I don't think so. I mean, I don't have any inside scoop there in terms of talking to the attorneys. But yeah, look, this is a -- even in New York, even if the judge has some hostility to President Trump, which the gag order would suggest he does, you know, this is a triable case. I mean, any litigator is chomping at the bit at the notion of cross-examining Michael Cohen.

So, I think the strategy, if you're President Trump's lawyers, yeah, there's a whole bunch of legal kind of novelty, which I would call frailty to this case. But at the end of the day, you want to make it about Michael Cohen. And if you can make it about a convicted perjurer, about a failed cooperator, and say, folks, would you even buy a car from this guy, much less base your verdict on this man's word, that could be something that at least gets a hung jury, which would be a victory here.

So first, let's talk about Michael Cohen. Let's talk about the hung jury strategy.

TRUSTY: Sure.

TAPPER: We had Lanny Davis here. He used to be Michael Cohen's attorney.

[17:10:00] And his basic argument was, and this is an attorney for Michael Cohen, former, that yes, Michael Cohen perjured himself before Congress, but he did so at the direction of Donald Trump. And that's going to be what Michael Cohen says. Yes, I lied, but I did so because Donald Trump told me to because I work with him, but now, now the truth is setting me free. That will be easy, you think, for the defense to poke holes in?

TRUSY: Yeah, I think that's kind of the fool me once, fool me twice comment. Like, you know, which time are we supposed to believe Michael? And again, he's got a longer track record of saying things contradicting himself over time when it comes to President Trump. So, look, you know, he wasn't a great lawyer to pick. You can always go back and say, well, you're the one that picked them, President Trump. I get that.

But he's going to collapse of his own weight in a lot of ways. I mean, he's lied to Congress. He's a failed cooperator. Southern District of New York, which is not shy to take cases, walked away not only from this case, but from him directly saying we're not going to give him any credit for cooperation. He's too slippery, too dishonest.

So again, that's the focus you have to make it on as a trial lawyer for President Trump, is it's all about this guy's credibility. You can't take it to the bank. And, you know, blaming the victim of his dishonesty probably won't sell.

TAPPER: Jim Trusty, thanks so much. Appreciate it. We'll have you back to talk more as this case continues. Donald Trump's motorcade is expected to pull up at Trump Tower any moment. Trump is railing about the legal system being rigged against him. Is the legal system actually kinder to him, however, than it might be to the average American? We're going to talk to somebody who believes that. That's next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[17:15:39]

TAPPER: Here's some video from just moments ago outside Trump Tower where former President Trump just arrived waving and giving a supportive fist to fans. For months up until this morning former President Trump has been lashing out at the judge and prosecutors and potential witnesses in the New York criminal trial.

So, the judge put him under a gag order, banning him from making public statements about many of the people connected with the case and also from attacking the judge's family members, as Trump has. Mr. Trump is still allowed to talk about Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg and New York Judge Juan Merchan, which he did over the weekend.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DONALD TRUMP, FORMER PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: I have a crooked judge, a highly conflicted and corrupt judge who suffers from TDS, Trump Derangement Syndrome. (END VIDEO CLIP)

TAPPER: There's no evidence that the judge has any anti-Trump feelings or biases or TDS. James Romoser, the legal editor for "Politico," joins me now. And James, you're out with a new story. You say, quote, "How Donald Trump Gets Special Treatment in the Legal System." That's what it's titled. And you write in it, quote, "Trump is enmeshed in a two-tiered system of justice, he often says, and he's right. There are two tiers. But Trump frequently has been the beneficiary, not the victim," unquote.

So, Mr. Trump constantly claims to be a victim of an unjust system. You write it's quite the opposite. Explain.

JAMES ROMOSER, LEGAL EDITOR, POLITICO: Well, I think there are many examples of how Donald Trump, in his odyssey through the criminal justice system over the last year, is being treated differently and more favorably than almost any other criminal defendant standing in those same shoes.

There are a number of examples of this. And I think the principal example is some of the comments that you just mentioned, Jake, the way that Trump has relentlessly attacked almost everyone involved in all these cases. He's denigrated the prosecutors, the judges, judges' family members, witnesses against him.

And he is under some gag orders in these cases. And he certainly toes right up to the line of those gag orders and sometimes violates those gag orders. But even aside from the gags, in all of his criminal cases, Trump is under strict pretrial conditions. He has to abide by certain rules. And those rules preclude him from doing things like attacking potential witnesses against him, but he has done that.

Just this weekend, he attacked Michael Cohen, the star witness in the prosecution's case in the New York trial. And what I've had criminal defense attorneys tell me is that if any of their clients were to make those sorts of comments while they're on pretrial release, they'd be thrown in jail pretty quickly.

TAPPER: What stood out to you today in terms of the thesis of your article, in terms of the two-tiered system? And I agree with you, by the way, there is a two-tiered system. And its poor people who can't afford good legal representation and who often get, you know, shoehorned into prosecutions and we've covered that a number of times on this show. But today, did you see any examples of this?

ROMOSER: You know, I thought it was incredibly ironic that much of the morning session today on the first day of the trial was about Trump's comments over the weekend. And in fact, the prosecutors were asking the judge to hold Trump in contempt for basically violating those rules that I just talked about over the last few days and attacking Michael Cohen.

And then just an hour after that whole discussion happened in open court, during the very lunch break in the trial, Trump went on Truth Social and he posted a video of one of his allies attacking Michael Cohen and attacking the judge's wife after the judge issued a gag order explicitly prohibiting Trump from attacking family members, including family members of the judge.

And I think what you'll hear from lawyers is that if any other defendant were to relentlessly attack the judge's own family, that would not be stood for. There would be no leeway for that. The pretrial conditions would be revoked.

The person would be thrown in jail, fined, banned from social media, like Roger Stone was banned from social media when he was attacking his judge in his case. Instead, what happened today is that Trump set a hearing from a week from now to consider the prosecutor's request to hold him in contempt.

[17:20:00]

TAPPER: So just the lead of your story is really interesting. A firebrand politician named Donald is about to stand trial. Just a few days before jury selection, he goes on TV to slam the charges as baseless and biased. He attacks the FBI and the Justice Department. But this is not Donald Trump. It's a man named Don Hill, a former Dallas City Council member, facing bribery charges. What's the difference and how those two were treated?

ROSOMER: Well, yeah, so it's interesting. I came across that anecdote in my research and I found this analogy of sort of a relatively high- profile politician defendant, at least high-profile in his own community. And when he was on trial, he made a series of comments, you know, claiming that he was the victim of a politically biased prosecution, just as Trump always does.

And in fact, this guy's comments are quite tame compared to what we've become used to from Donald Trump. And in that case, one single comment claiming a politically biased prosecution got that politician slapped with a contempt order, slapped with a gag order, and sent us to 30 days in jail. And so, the differential treatment was striking to me.

And there may be very good reasons to treat Donald Trump differently in some ways. He's a former president. He's a presidential candidate. He has a First Amendment right to criticize the cases against him, of course. And Americans want to hear him criticizing the cases against him. And so, I'm not necessarily making a value judgment about exactly how Trump should be treated or say that any of these judges should throw him in jail willy-nilly.

But I think it's worth pointing out that Trump's claims about the two- tiered system are somewhat ironic because he is treated differently from other defendants in many ways.

TAPPER: James Romoser from "Politico," thanks so much. Appreciate it. Really interesting story.

How will Israel respond after Iran's unprecedented attack over the weekend? What we're learning about Israel's latest war cabinet meeting, next.

(COMMERCIAL BREK)

[17:26:26]

TAPPER: We are back right now. The world is on edge and awaiting Israel's response after the unprecedented attack on Israel directly by Iran over the weekend. More than 300 attack drones and missiles launched from Iranian land towards Israel. U.S. and Israeli officials say almost all were intercepted, as President Biden is telling Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu that the U.S. will not participate in any Israeli counterattack directly on Iran.

CNN's Jeremy Diamond is in Tel Aviv. And Jeremy, the Israeli war cabinet meeting ended hours ago. How should we read the fact that there has been no public announcement yet over any decision to counterattack?

JEREMY DIAMOND, CNN WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: Well, Jake, it's very interesting because yesterday when the war cabinet met for nearly five hours, we were quickly told that there had been no decision made. Today, after nearly three hours of meetings, Israeli officials have been quiet about whether or not a decision was made.

What I was told, though, by one Israeli official is that the sense coming out of this war cabinet meeting was that a swift response to this Iranian strike was generally the consensus. And that has really been one of the key points of debate within the war cabinet, is not only the scale of this response, how big to go, how measured this response should be, but also the timing of it, how quickly Israel should respond.

But one thing is clear, is that they are in agreement that a response is necessary. I spoke with the former head of Israeli military intelligence today who said that Israel needs to re-establish deterrence.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TAMIR HAYMAN, FORMER HEAD OF ISRAELI DEFENSE INTELLIGENCE: Israel does not want that to be a part of the tool in the toolkit in a future operational friction. We do not want to create some kind of routine. Something need to be done in order to re-establish the deterrence against Iran.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

DIAMOND: And so, Jake, now the question just comes down to timing. How quickly will the Israeli military carry out the next steps? Today, the Israeli military's chief of staff, General Herzi Halevi, saying only that Israel will indeed respond to Iran, Jake.

TAPPER: Jeremy, you also have some new reporting about Hamas significantly decreasing the number of hostages it says that they're willing to release. What's that?

DIAMOND: Yeah, that's right, Jake. Hamas has actually slashed by more than half the number of hostages it would be willing to release over the course of six weeks. This is according to an Israeli source close to the negotiations who I just spoke with. They said that while the basis of these negotiations has been 40 hostages released over the course of six weeks, this has been the basis of negotiations for months now. And now Hamas is saying that it will only release fewer than 20 hostages over the course of six weeks.

I even got comment from Basem Naim, a Hamas spokesman, who told me that Hamas had proposed, quote, "releasing three captured Israelis each week," but he said that no one is talking about final numbers. I'm also told that Hamas is demanding more Palestinian prisoners be released in exchange for fewer Israeli hostages. They are also asking for more Palestinian prisoners who are serving heavy sentences in Israeli prisons.

And the Israeli source who I spoke with said that they believe that Hamas does not want a deal. That is their belief, as they see the talks effectively backsliding with this demand. And of course, beyond this issue of Palestinian prisoners, there is also the issue of the withdrawal of Israeli troops, a total end to the war.

Those are some of the other Hamas demands that they are making right now that Israeli officials simply are not going to go for, Jake.

TAPPER: All right, Jeremy Diamond in Israel for us. Thanks so much.

[17:30:07]

Joining us now to discuss former U.S. defense secretary under President Obama and former CIA Chief Leon Panetta. Secretary Panetta, thanks so much for joining us. Your fellow former CIA director, retired General David Petraeus, told me yesterday that Israel is going to have to take some action and respond to Iran. But he added, there's a whole menu from which to choose. What would you advise the Israeli government to do right now to respond to the Iranian attack, if anything?

LEON PANETTA, FORMER CIA DIRECTOR, OBAMA ADMINISTRATION: Well, Jake, look, there's no question this was a historic and unprecedented attack, 300 drones and cruise missiles and ICBMs is an unprecedented attack. But it's also an historic failure. The reality is 99 percent of those weapons fail.

And Israel, I think, came out a winner after that attack. So my approach would be, according to the old saying that revenge is a dish that's best served cold. And while I understand the need to reestablish deterrence, I really think that Israel has to think long and hard about what approach they should take. They have a chance to establish an unprecedented alliance in that part of the world.

United States, Great Britain, France, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, UAE, that could be one hell of a coalition to confront not only Iran but also terrorism in that part of the world. So I would just be very careful about what targets you go after.

TAPPER: Do you think refraining will ultimately make Iran less likely? If is -- I mean, if Israel does not respond, you know, the thinking by many in Israel and the Middle East in general is that you have to respond or else you do not achieve deterrence. Many people think that Israel's response to Hamas in Gaza is based and rooted quite a bit in deterrence and making sure Hezbollah and Iran understand what will happen if they ever do anything like what Hamas did October 7th. You think it actually could be stronger for Israel in the long run if they don't respond and instead try to forge more of a regional alliance with Saudi Arabia, the UAE, et cetera?

PANETTA: I think they've got an unprecedented opportunity here to really build a very strong coalition that they're going to need in the Middle East, not only to confront Iran and terrorism, but they're going to need that coalition when Gaza comes to an end. And they have to determine what the next chapter is.

Look, I understand the mindset in the Middle East. It's always tit for tat. You can't let the other guy get away with anything. Otherwise you're undermining deterrence. I understand that mindset. But what I'm saying is Israel has to recognize what they've been able to achieve here. Their country was strongly defended by a strong coalition that brought down every missile that was aimed at them. That's unprecedented. And I think you want to build on that. You want to build on that coalition. You want to build on that strength to think carefully about what the next step should be.

Look, there's some tier one targets they could go after that would clearly escalate the war in the Middle East. There's also some tier two targets, whether it's cyber, whether it's going after proxies like Hezbollah and others. There's also the possibility of bringing the Gaza war to an end and beginning to build some kind of stabilized Palestinian control in Gaza. That would be a major step forward for Israel and for that region.

So there's a lot of different approaches here that could be taken that I think could strengthen Israel's hand rather than weaken it.

TAPPER: I also want to get your take on what Jeremy Diamond just reported. A source telling CNN that Hamas is slashing the number of hostages. It says it's willing to release by half, from 40 to 20 in this first round. Hamas is asking for even more Palestinian prisoners in exchange. How significant of a backslide is this, you think?

PANETTA: I think it is a significant backslide, and it only confirms in my mind the worst, which is that many of the hostages that we think they have probably are dead, for all we know. And this kind of backsliding on hostages clearly is going to undercut any chance for a viable ceasefire.

[17:35:11]

It's a -- it's just tells us more and more that ultimately, Israel is going to have to decide how to continue to target Hamas leadership, how to continue to try to make sure that Hamas never again attacks Israel, and how, in the end, we can try to find a way to better stabilize that part of the world. I -- I think this could be a great opportunity. Israel just had a great coalition come to their defense. You don't want to blow that. TAPPER: Secretary Panetta, always good to see you, sir. Thank you so much.

President Biden today again called on Congress to pass funding for Israel and Ukraine. The Senate did so more than two months, but a group of hardline conservatives in the House do not want to follow suit. They're putting pressure on House Speaker Mike Johnson, and a critical meeting is getting underway this hour. That story next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[17:40:13]

TAPPER: Back with our Politics Lead, a bipartisan group of lawmakers are imploring House Speaker Mike Johnson to immediately take up that national security bill passed by the Senate two months ago that included aid for both Ukraine and Israel. CNN's Manu Raju is on Capitol Hill. Manu, Republicans are in a conference meeting right now to discuss this. And you just pulled an important, significant congresswoman aside, Congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Greene from Georgia. What did she have to tell you?

MANU RAJU, CNN CHIEF CONGRESSIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Yes, there's a lot of anticipation for this moment right now because we expect Mike Johnson to actually make a decision, make announcement about how he will proceed on foreign aid, stalled foreign aid. You mentioned the Senate bill that passed two months ago, including $95 billion for aid to Ukraine, Israel and Taiwan.

Mike Johnson has not moved on that package because it does not include border security measures, even as Republicans in the House and the Senate scuttle a bipartisan border security plan in the Senate. Nevertheless, because it does not have border security measures, that bill has stalled. Now, Johnson has been moving behind the scenes for the past several weeks to try to come up with a new proposal to try to gain more support among Republicans on the issue of Ukraine.

It is still a major question right now exactly what approach Johnson will take and whether he would tie Ukraine aid to Israel aid at this, particularly in the aftermath of the Iranian attacks that happened over the weekend. Now, on top of all that, you mentioned Marjorie Taylor Greene, she has raised the specter that she could call for a vote seeking Mike Johnson's ouster. She has said that for some time. She -- only one member of the House can do that and she is keeping threatened to do so.

And she might go that far if he moves forward with Ukraine aid. She is dead set against any more U.S. dollars going to help Ukraine in its war against Russia. And I asked her, will you -- will that be enough for you to pull the trigger and move ahead with this call for Mike Johnson's ouster?

She would not go that far. She said she wants to hear what Mike Johnson said. And Johnson, of course, went to Mar-a-Lago on Friday to get Donald Trump's support to align himself with Trump. Trump said that he stands by the speaker and raised concerns about the efforts to push out Johnson. I asked Greene whether or not Trump's comments changed Johnson's, her approach towards Mike Johnson in any way. She indicated it does not.

She said that perhaps there could be more support to oust Johnson if he moves ahead with aid to Ukraine. So, Jake, this is a critical moment, not just for the future of Ukraine, but aid to Israel, aid to Taiwan, and Mike Johnson's speakership. How does he hang on here amid the push from the far right of the House Republican conference?

We do expect Johnson to address the press in about an hour to talk about his path forward here. So, Jake, he told reporters going in he's ready to make a play call, and Republicans are in this meeting waiting for him to hear what that call is.

TAPPER: Yes. And Marjorie Taylor Greene, threatening his speakership. Manu, thanks so much. This debate over U.S. funding goes well beyond just House Republicans. How might this all end? We'll try to game it out here next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[17:47:00]

TAPPER: And we're back with our Politics Lead, a deeply divided Congress is weighing how to pass more aid for Israel following Iran's large scale attack against the U.S. ally. Tensions in the Middle East are already so fraught amid the Israel-Hamas war. So how can President Biden keep it from getting worse while also running for reelection?

My political panel is here to discuss. And, Nayyera, I understand President Biden's desire to avoid a wider conflict in the Middle East. Nobody wants Armageddon. Nobody wants World War III. Well, maybe some people do, but nobody in the administration. Do you think telling Prime Minister Netanyahu that the U.S. is not going to participate in any offensive action against Iran is the right move?

NAYYERA HAQ, SENIOR DIRECTOR OF CABINET AFFAIRS, OBAMA ADMINISTRATION: It's also the message that he's given Ukraine, right, in terms of being an ally in this moment where countries are under attack, where democracy is under threat, and those beacons of democracy are under threat. President Biden has made it very clear he will work in coalition. He will supply arms and armaments, but he will not allow U.S. boots on the ground to engage.

I draw this parallel because this aid package is about Ukraine and Israel. And that question has been brought up by Republicans in Congress of what does it mean to defend Israel and what does it mean to defend Ukraine? And I would say that the Biden administration is drawing a boundary between the longstanding ally of Israel and the more newer protection of democracy after a Russian invasion.

And to be clear, the United States has always stood by Israel when Israel has come under attack, the entire iron dome system, all of these systems that allowed Israel to survive this weekend are because of the United States support. TAPPER: And one of the big moves going on right now is Speaker Johnson is trying to decide how to deal with this push to -- there are those in his conference that don't want any foreign aid going out the door at all. Marjorie Taylor Greene, for example, like, says, oh, this weekend she said that he should separate the Israel aid from the Ukraine aid so people can vote just on the Israel aid. He did that already. It's already happened twice. She voted against it, by the way, not that was included in her tweet.

But then there are those in the conference, Republicans, who say, no, we need to fund both of them. Let's get both of them out the door. What do you think should happen?

SHERMICHAEL SINGLETON, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: Well, look, I think the speaker needs to move forward with funding and providing aid to both countries, Jake. And the last thing we want is for the Iranian government to move forward with their uranium program. They're at 60 percent currently. I was talking to Colonel Cedric Leighton earlier today about that, and he was telling me it's only within a couple more months that they could potentially be at close to 90 percent. We don't want that possibility for Israel.

I also think with Ukraine, we certainly cannot allow genocide on our watch. I mean, Bill Clinton, you remember the Africa issue, he came years later and would apologize, Rwanda, for not taking action. I don't think that will be good for the Republican Party to appear to not support our allies during their time of need. We know that there is a reduction in democracies around the globe right now.

So I would argue, and Republicans may disagree with me, but we have to stand firm. We're protecting the democracies that remain, and they're going to need our help and leadership to do so.

[17:50:09]

TAPPER: And so --

HAQ: Particularly after 9/11. This idea that if we are able to as a country stop threats overseas, we can protect ourselves here at home is a very potent idea. That is a message that President and allied Republicans can lean into. This is all about deterring the challenges, and keeping them overseas.

TAPPER: So the divisions in the Republican Party are one thing. There's also divisions in the Democratic Party. For instance, I want you to take a listen to what Democratic Senator John Fetterman of Pennsylvania told me yesterday. He has been -- he's basically suggesting that he thinks President Biden is too wobbly on Israel. Take a listen.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. JOHN FETTERMAN (D-PA): I think it really demonstrates how it's astonishing that we are not standing firmly with Israel and there should never be any kinds of conditions on all that when a nation can launch hundreds of drones towards Israel. And I'm not going to be talking about conditions ever.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

TAPPER: President Biden has suggested and other Democrats outright saying there need to be conditions attached to any future military aid for Israel.

AYESHA RASCOE, HOST, NPR'S WEEKEND EDITION SUNDAY: You know, I think that this is a very difficult line that Biden has to walk because he's going to alienate people on his side either way. Like there are people on the far left that are saying, and in places like Michigan are saying, they will not turn out if they feel like Biden has not stood up enough for the Palestinians in Gaza and stood up against what is happening. But then in other places like Pennsylvania, he's going to face that pushback, that he is not supportive enough of Israel.

He has tried to walk this line. I don't know how successful he has been. And at the same time, he has had Israel, you know, even that attack on the consulate that led to this Iranian attack, I mean, you've had these difficulties where you can see that the U.S. is saying Israel, can you pull back? Can you do this? Can you do something differently? And they're not necessarily getting that support from that ally. So I think that it's a relationship that they've had some difficulties with.

TAPPER: All right, thanks to all of you. Appreciate it.

Coming up next, a dramatic video unveiling a maddening act of vandalism at Lake Mead. Stay with us.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[17:56:34]

TAPPER: Our Leads Around the World begins with our Money Lead in a weekend e-mail from Elon Musk announcing job cuts at Tesla, his electric car company. The layouts will hit at least 14,000 members of Tesla's global staff, around 10 percent of its workforce. Musk's e- mail says the cuts are needed for cost reductions and increasing productivity, unquote.

For our What Were They Thinking Lead, in our National Lead, check out this video of two as yet unidentified visitors to the Lake Mead National Recreation Area along the Arizona Nevada border as they vandalize rock formations, shoving wide slabs off of them to watch them smash apart on the ground. What a bunch of idiots. The rock formations are, I don't know, merely around 140 million years old. The damage, of course, irreversible. Park rangers are so angry they released this unblurred photo of the vandals so the public could help identify them and bring them to justice. That look like anyone you know?

In our World Lead, the findings of a new review of the actions U.S. troops in Afghanistan took leading up to the deadly Abbey Gate bombing in 2021, 13 U.S. service members were killed tragically in that blast, which cemented in the eyes of the world just how chaotic America's withdrawal from Afghanistan was.

CNN's Natasha Bertrand joins us now from the Pentagon. And Natasha, the biggest finding reveals whether U.S. troops actually saw the suicide bomber before the attack. Tell us more.

NATASHA BERTRAND, CNN NATIONAL SECURITY AND POLITICS CORRESPONDENT: Yes, Jake, this review interviewed over 190 people over the course of several months. And what it found is that these service members, many of whom have said since last year that they believe they did see that bomber and had the opportunity to take him out before he actually detonated that bomb actually did not.

Those service members did not, in fact, see the individual who was ultimately deemed to be responsible for that deadly bombing. His name is Abdul Rahman Al-Logari, and he is a member of ISIS-K. And he was, as CNN previously reported, released by the Taliban as part of a prison break just days before the fall of Kabul. You see him there on your screen.

Now, many service members, including one Sergeant Tyler Vargas- Andrews, a Marine Corps sniper who testified last year about this, had identified someone that has been described in these reports as the bald man in black, as the individual who was suspected to be that bomber. You can see him right there on the screen in the middle there.

It turns out, according to this exhaustive review by the U.S. military, that he was not the one who ultimately carried out that attack and that the identification of him by some of these Marine Corps snipers was the result of conflating two different pieces of intelligence.

In fact, the real ISIS-K bomber did not show up until just several hours before that deadly Abbey Gate bombing, when, in fact, the bald man in black was identified about seven hours prior to that attack. And so you see clearly that the military is trying to address these concerns, that they could have prevented this, but clearly, according to the military, they could not have.

TAPPER: So, Natasha, there are also questions about a Marine battalion commander on site at Abbey Gate and whether he understood the rules of engagement. Did the report look into that?

BERTRAND: This was another complaint that some sniper, Marine Corps snipers had, which is that they informed their battalion commander about this bald man in black and saying that they wanted to engage him. It was not clear what the response of the battalion commander was to that request. But of course, ultimately that shot was not taken.

However, the military says that the battalion commander understood very well what the rules of engagements were and that there is no evidence to the contrary. Jake?

[18:00:07]

TAPPER: All right, Natasha Bertrand at the Pentagon for us, thank you so much. You can follow me on Facebook, Instagram, Threads, X, formerly known as Twitter, also on the TikTok, all of it under Jake Tapper. You can follow the show on X at TheLeadCNN. If you ever miss an episode of the lead, you can listen to the show once you get your podcast. All two hours just sitting out there like a big ripe peach.

Our coverage continues now with Wolf Blitzer in the situation Room. I'll see you tomorrow.