Return to Transcripts main page

The Lead with Jake Tapper

Speaker Johnson: I'm Not Asking Democrats To Get Involved In The Speakership Fight; Rep. Chip Roy, (R-TX), Is Interviewed About Mike Johnson; Speaker Johnson Admits He Needs Dems To Pass Aid Bills; Columbia University Leaders Testify On Capitol Hill; Prosecutors Want To Bring Up Trump's Legal Past If He Testifies; Sudan On Brink Of Collapse And Starvation; Convicted Palestinian Terrorist Walid Daqqa Dies In Israel Prison. Aired 5-6p ET

Aired April 17, 2024 - 17:00   ET

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

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[17:00:23]

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: This is CNN Breaking News.

JAKE TAPPER, CNN HOST: Welcome to The Lead. I'm Jake Tapper.

We start this hour with breaking news and what we just heard from House Speaker Mike Johnson live right here on The Lead just minutes ago. He is facing a potential revolt from his far right flank over his plan to bring three different foreign aid bills to the floor this weekend. It's a move his fiercest critics say could ultimately cost him the speakership. But Speaker Johnson tells me he's not worried about what could happen. He's going to do what he thinks is right, even if the bill gets Democratic votes.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REP. MIKE JOHNSON (R-LA), HOUSE SPEAKER: This is very simple, I'm operating with the smallest margin in U.S. history. I have a one vote margin, Jake. So, in order to get something into this underlying package, we have to have the votes on the floor to pass a rule. I don't have all my Republicans who agree on that rule. And that means the only way to get a rule on the floor is that it requires a couple of Democrats.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

TAPPER: That's Speaker Johnson explaining why there isn't a tougher border measure in this legislation as many House Republicans want there to be. Coming up in just moments, one of those Republicans, Congressman Chip Roy of Texas, is going to talk to us. He said today he's past the point of giving grace to the speaker. What's his response to what we just heard? I'll ask him, but we're going to start with CNN's Chief Congressional Correspondent Manu Raju.

Manu, Speaker Johnson admitting, saying the quiet part out loud he needs Democrats. You know, he's -- I only have a one vote majority, and I'm only doing this because I won't get support from Republicans on that. What's going to happen? Do you think he's going to get the votes for this package? And will Democrats ultimately save his speakership if it comes down to it?

MANU RAJU, CNN CHIEF CONGRESSIONAL CORRESPONDENT: It seems that's the direction this is headed, Jake. He made a calculated decision to move on the policy and the process exactly what the Democrats had wanted. They wanted to tie Israel aid with Ukraine aid and ultimately in the process, somewhat convoluted process, they plan to eventually get to the point where this will be all one big package, probably totaling about $95 billion. Now, the speaker indicated to you there might be some changes here and there around the edges and some of the policy provisions. But for the most part, this is very similar to the bill that passed the United States Senate about two months ago.

And that is one big reason why Democrats are signaling that they may very well come to Speaker Johnson's defense. Now, I spent the day speaking to Republicans and Democrats up and down the line, it is very clear that Democrats are -- the Republicans are badly divided on this subject about this bill and about whether Johnson deserves to remain as speaker.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

RAJU: Is your support for your motion to vacate growing?

REP. MARJORIE TAYLOR GREENE (R-GA): It is growing. I think some people are becoming more angry than I am. So this -- we'll see what happens today. I don't know how long people are going tolerate this because he's doing nothing but serving the Democrats.

REP. ERIC BURLISON (R-MO): I haven't made up my mind yet that -- I'm not happy about this rule, and he's pushing us to the brink here.

RAJU: What do you think of the efforts to try to oust him from the job?

REP. PAT FALLON (R-TX): I think it's horrendous. I think it's a disservice to the conservative movement, I think it's a disservice to the country.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

RAJU: So the way this is going to break down, Jake, is that on Saturday we expect that this bill, there'll be four different packages, three of which have been released so far. A fourth one is expected to come out sometime today. That will be -- those bills will be approved on Saturday. Likely a bipartisan majority in the House will approve that. There will be -- there needs to be a procedural vote first to take up that bill.

Typically, those procedural votes are done along party lines. But that's not going to happen this time, Democrats are going to save this rule from going down to allow the underlying bill from going forward. And what has angered more folks on the right is the decision by the speaker of the House to move border security measures, a separate bill on border security along a separate track. It will not be included as part of this big foreign aid package, even as Johnson had indicated for months that border security must be tied with Ukraine aid, which is one big reason why many of those Republicans are now gunning for him and saying that he should be out from the speakership because of that decision, Jake.

TAPPER: Yes, they hate the notion of him getting Democratic votes. Although in order to vacate Speaker Johnson, they will need and rely upon Democratic votes. I don't know if you heard our interview with Adam Schiff, Democratic congressman, but I asked him if Democrats were going to save the speaker if need be, and he said, basically, I'm paraphrasing, but along the lines of if this bill, the legislation he's presenting is, as he has said it is basically just the Senate foreign aid bill broken up, then he started talking about, Schiff, talking about, you know, possibilities about enough Democrats counterbalancing whatever the Republicans are that go of the -- that vote against Speaker Johnson or Democrats not voting at all or disappearing. I mean, there were a whole bunch of hypotheticals he was talking about that I hadn't even asked about.

[17:05:20]

RAJU: Yes. And look, that is a reality of the situation now. Hakeem Jeffries, the Democratic leader, has not made a final decision about how he wants his membership to come down. His decision will be key. But in talking to rank and file Democrats, including congressman like you just spoke to, Adam Schiff, they're indicating that they are very willing to save Speaker Johnson because of this decision to move ahead on Ukraine aid. And that had to be part of Johnson's calculation here.

He knew Republicans were never going to fall in line on that issue, but Democrats would. And this is different than the fall when Kevin McCarthy was ousted by Democrats and eight Republicans. This time, Congressman Tom Swazi of New York told me that he would vote to keep Mike Johnson in the job. Adam Smith of Washington State indicated that he might as well. As well as Jared Moskowitz of Florida, just among the few who are indicating that they are not support this effort to oust Mike Johnson.

And Hakeem Jeffries says it's time to save Mike Johnson, that will happen. The big question, though, Jake, can Johnson survive sustain a speakership propped up by Democrats? That's going to be a question for Johnson and the Republican conference.

TAPPER: All right, Manu Raju, thanks so much. Let's bring in CNN's Political Director David Chalian.

David, help us put today in perspective, House Speaker Mike Johnson just telling me how the speakership job is effectively impossible right now. The smallest majority ever, one vote. He can -- by the way, some of the reason that the majority is so small is because some House Republicans left and did so in a way --

DAVID CHALIAN, CNN POLITICAL DIRECTOR: Yes.

TAPPER: -- left early and did so in a way so as to keep a majority small because they're so fed up with people that they think are ruining the place. You have the Senate also, meanwhile, at the same exact time wrapping up this impeachment trial against Mayorkas, Department of Homeland Security secretary, everyone knew it was going to go nowhere. Let's just start with this moment in history, which I think it's fair to say there is some Republicans in disarray.

CHALIAN: I mean, when you think about the first impeachment of a cabinet secretary in 150 years that Republicans -- several Republicans themselves said did not meet the threshold of high crimes and misdemeanors, I mean, the entire trial was done within three and a half hours. And so clearly, Democrats weren't taking it seriously, but even some Republicans said it didn't meet the threshold. You have Republicans perhaps poised to oust their second speaker in six months time --

TAPPER: He is the most conservative speaker in the modern history of this Congress.

CHALIAN: As they are holding the majority of the House of Representatives, the one slice of government they're in charge of and they may just go through this self-immolation exercise again of getting rid of its own speaker. All while the republican nominee for president and the former president is sitting as a criminal defendant on trial in New York awaiting jury selection to be completed in this first criminal case of his. It's just -- it is a moment where you step back and you say, you know, fiction writers would write each one of these things and you wouldn't believe it's all happening in the same day.

TAPPER: It'd be too broad.

CHALIAN: Yes.

TAPPER: It'd be too on the nose. Netflix would say, nah, that would never happen. David Chalian, thanks so much.

It's a busy afternoon here at The Lead because it's a busy afternoon on Capitol Hill. Republican Congressman Chip Roy is just getting to our camera, putting the microphone on his tie. We'll talk to him about all this next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[17:12:38]

TAPPER: Busy day here at The Lead. We're back with more on our politics lead. Joining us now to discuss everything going on on Capitol Hill right now is Republican Congressman Chip Roy of Texas.

Congressman, thank you so much for joining us. I want to play a clip of what Speaker Johnson just told me about his view of the importance of passing the foreign aid bills that are going to come before the House, I believe, on Saturday. Take a listen.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JOHNSON: And we are going to stand by Israel, our close ally and dear friend, and we're going to stand for freedom and make sure that Vladimir Putin doesn't march through Europe. These are important responsibilities. A strong America is good for the entire world. Since World War II, really, really the responsibility for the free world has been shifted onto our shoulders.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

TAPPER: But you disagree with him. Why is that case not good enough for you?

REP. CHIP ROY (R-TX): Well, Jake, yes, thanks for having me on. And, look, I don't really disagree with any statement that Mike just made in the broad sense of the words. In fact, I wrote an op-ed yesterday about our need to stand right alongside Israel, I believe that and strongly. I tried last night all the way till midnight, I was in the speaker's office trying to get us to put a Israel first bill on the floor. Just focus on Israel. Get a rule move that, let's focus on that and then have a debate about Ukraine and what we're doing with respect to it and its funding.

My concern about this package is it's $95 billion of foreign aid when, A, we're 34 and a half trillion dollars in debt, but B, we're also dealing with wide open borders. And central to our entire debate over the last year, as you know, has been the importance of making sure we secure the borders of the United States. We have 24,000, over 24,000 Chinese nationals, 85 percent of whom are single adults who have come into this country since October 1. That's more than all of last fiscal year. Well, more than the 381, that's it, 381 that we had in 2021, the last year of President Trump's tenure in terms of the fiscal year.

So, the reality is we need to do that and do our job. I would love to do what we can to support Israel. Again, I support it. But in this $95 billion package, there's 9 billion in humanitarian aid, which if you go look at who it goes to are the same kinds of organizations, not UNRWA, because we took that out, you know, a couple of weeks ago, but that goes to fund Hamas. So we're funding Israel, which I support, but we're also funding Israel's enemies and funding Hamas. This is the kind of duplicitous crap the American people are tired of.

So, I'd like to go back to the drawing board, pass Israel standalone and not have this package that has that funding in it that I think is nefarious and focus on the border first.

[17:15:01]

TAPPER: So, in terms of the border issue, I asked him a lot of House Republicans want to have strengthening the border, tougher restrictions on the border and immigration, et cetera, as part of this. Why isn't it part of it? And he said, it's very simple, I have the slenderest majority in the history of the Congress. I can only lose one vote. And therefore, because there are so many Republicans who will vote against the rule to introduce this legislation that he would need democratic votes to introduce the rule to allow the votes on this legislation.

And Democrats won't have -- they won't vote for anything that includes the immigration stuff. And that's why he just, you know, this is the reality of it.

And I just wonder if by opposing everything, your group of people who are upset with what the speaker is doing, if you haven't taken yourself out of relevance in terms of what's in the bill, if you were committed to, I will vote for the rule as long as you put in immigration restrictions, then you might have more of an influence on what he's bringing to the floor for a vote on Saturday.

ROY: Yes, Jake. So I told the speaker last night, number one, that we had full unanimity among the Freedom Caucus in particular and that we could advance Israel to the floor and support the rule and have a vote on that. And then I said that I believe that we could get agreement on the rule, certainly would have my support on moving a rule forward. If you had Ukraine with border security attached and border security, I offered numerous options, right? Not just H.R. 2, take it or leave it, but some variations of H.R. 2, maybe you could take out E-Verify and be able to move it along with it because there's some ag community that have some concerns about it.

I mean, I support E-Verify, but there are things we could do to try to move it around. There's voter identification that we've got legislation that we're working on, that I've been working on with the speaker on. There's other issues that we could deal with to stop the abuse of parole. These are all things that we threw out there as options. We don't know what the rule vote would look like because we've never tried, that's the truth.

We've never tried to send over an actual border security package with Ukraine so that we can make clear to our Democratic colleagues on the other side of the aisle in the Senate and in the White House that we're serious about that and that the American people want to see that first because we're dealing with that crisis from Laken Riley, to the bodies --

TAPPER: Yes.

ROY: -- washing up in the Rio Grande, to the ranch devastation, to the cost, a thousand migrants in New York that are out there saying, hey, you're kicking us out of hotels, you know, to go put us in these centers and they're protesting. I mean, this is like -- it's really devastating for the American people what we're seeing happen. And I can't overstate the importance of the Chinese nationals that we're talking about --

TAPPER: Yes.

ROY: -- the large number of single adult populations.

TAPPER: So, just -- I assume you're going to vote against the rule on Saturday if Marjorie Taylor Greene and Tom Massie push forward a motion to vacate. Are you going to support vacating Speaker Johnson?

ROY: You know, as you know, I opposed that last September. I do not want to go into that zip code, if you will. I would rather us do our job, try to move this stuff forward and work together. But I will say I'm very disappointed in the speaker. This is a bridge too far in terms of where we're headed right now, in terms of putting Ukraine first rather than America's borders first.

I sympathetic and open to having a conversation about Israel and Ukraine, but only after you've done your job to secure the border of the United States. And so, that's my starting place. And you and I sat down in January 15 months ago, this rule that they want to put forward, that's not an open debate. I mean, I want to put that to bed. This is not an open process.

This is precooked to give you the exact result that came out of the Senate. The numbers that are put forward are all the defense industries numbers. It's all the lobbyist numbers. It's all the Pentagon's numbers. They're all doing it to give you exactly the same as the Senate bill.

It's all precooked. It's not going to be an open process for amendments. And border is specifically left out. And I said, hey, would you just put Ukraine on the floor standalone? The answer is no.

Why? Because they want to be able to manage the votes with Israel. I said we put Israel on the floor standalone. No, because Democrats want support to Israel. Look, the bottom line here is we ought to try to move this stuff to regular order.

This is not regular order. Or if we're going to do a package, it ought to be an America first package that includes the border, because that, by the way, is what the speaker said almost every day and every week from November until last month. Literally, go look at all the speeches, all the quotes he said, no Ukraine without border.

TAPPER: Yes. Republican Congressman Chip Roy of Texas, thanks so much. Good to see you, sir.

ROY: Thanks, Jake.

TAPPER: Also on the Hill today, the president of Columbia University in New York facing questions and criticism, as some students say she's not protecting them from antisemitism. We're going to get into this undercurrent rocking so many college campuses in America right now. Stay with us.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[17:23:46]

TAPPER: Also on our politics lead today, campus antisemitism in the United States is once again the center of a contentious house hearing. This time, the head of Columbia University. As some students say, the school has not done nearly enough to protect them from antisemitism. One board member said she's not satisfied with where Columbia is in terms of his campus climate.

Back in December, as you may recall, a similar hearing went disastrously wrong for two university leaders, eventually ending with the presidents of Harvard and the University of Pennsylvania resigning. They failed to answer the basic question of whether calling for the genocide of Jews amounts to harassment and antisemitism. Columbia University president today, Dr. Minouche Shafik, and other school leaders had a chance to answer that very same question. Here's what they said.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REP. SUZANNE BONAMICI (D-OR): Does calling for the genocide of Jews violate Columbia's code of conduct? Mr. Greenwald?

DAVID GREENWALD, COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY BOARD OF TRUSTEE, CO-CHAIR: Yes, it does.

BONAMICI: Ms. Shipman.

CLAIRE SHIPMAN, COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY BOARD OF TRUSTEE, CO-CHAIR: Yes, it does.

BONAMICI: Dr. Shafik.

NEMAT SHAFIK, COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY PRESIDENT: Yes, it does.

BONAMICI: And Professor Schizer.

DAVID SCHIZER, COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY FACULTY MEMBER: Yes, it does.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

TAPPER: Oh, I guess they learned their lesson. Our panel is here.

Margaret, do you think that those answers would have been so clear, quick, and definitive had they not been preceded by what happened --

[17:25:00]

MARGARET TALEV, CNN POLITICAL ANALYST: Yes.

TAPPER: -- in December.

TALEV: I love when you started laughing before the questions out of your mouth. And the answer is --

TAPPER: I think I know the answer.

TALEV: No.

TAPPER: Yes.

TALEV: But if you read her prepared testimony before she was there in front of the cameras and stuff, there was a passage that really stood out to me, and it said something like, please remember, university presidents are not politicians. Which I know was sort of wishful thinking like that, you know, other people get to decide if you're a politician or not. But I think the reason that was sort of baked into the statement was that has been the real problem. You've become a university president by virtue of a number of things, may be your academic experience, your -- you know, the work you've done for the university, but it's not usually because you have a decades long record of political training. And at least they have had sort of a crash course in crisis after what happened before, but even so, she ran into some headwinds today.

TAPPER: Yes. And Meghan. Columbia says it's firing one professor hired after he posted support for the Hamas attack on October 7. Columbia then condemned the tenured professor, Joseph Massad, who described Hamas October 7 attack as a, quote, "stunning victory" in an online article. But he still has a job. I mean, tenure still exists.

I want you to listen to this exchange with Republican Congressman Elise Stefanik of New York.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REP. ELISE STEFANIK (R-NY): Massad is still, in fact, listed on the Columbia website as chair of the academic review committee. Are you aware of that?

SHAFIK: I would need to check that. I don't want to misstate.

STEFANIK: But it's the website right here.

SHAFIK: I don't want to misstate because I don't --

STEFANIK: So he hasn't been removed as chair?

SHAFIK: I would like to confirm that to you.

STEFANIK: Do you have my commitment he'll be removed as chair today?

SHAFIK: I have my commitment that I will come back to you.

STEFANIK: You can't say at this -- that this hearing that he should be removed as chair even though he violates university rules?

SHIPMAN: Personally, I would not want him as chair. And we are looking at the issue of faculty about what we expect from our faculty. Thank you.

STEFANIK: Mr. Greenwald, do you think he should be removed as chair?

GREENWALD: His comments are abhorrent, and I believe that one of the steps that we could take in terms of discipline is to remove them from that leadership position.

STEFANIK: Thank you for that direct answer.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

TAPPER: So some of the subtext of this is interesting because it's not as easy as a president saying this person is abhorrent and he should be removed as chair because colleges have all sorts of screwy rules and the faculty to deal with. But Greenwald didn't say he's gone. Greenwald said his comments are abhorrent, I believe that one of the steps we could take in terms of discipline is to remove him from the leadership position. But his answer was much more politic than hers. MEGHAN HAYS, FORMER SPECIAL ASSISTANT TO PRES. BIDEN: Yes. I mean, just like, as Margaret was saying, university presidents have a lot of different stakeholders here that they have to answer to, and they also don't take a lot of crisis comms classes or do this. It's probably the first time they've had any sort of Q and A in a tough setting before. So I do think -- I mean, obviously, she could have answered much more definitively here, and they -- as her co panelists did.

TAPPER: Yes. And the thing about Joseph Massad, anybody paying attention to this campus controversy story would know that he wrote that story calling the Hamas attack, you know, praising it as a victory --

DAVID URBAN, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: That's a mark.

TAPPER: -- months ago. Months ago. And one would think that the university would say, OK, well, this guy maybe shouldn't be chairing our committee. But, you know.

URBAN: Yes, universities are a tough place, Jake, right? And it -- they don't play by the -- unfortunately, they don't play by the same rules as the normal world does for some reason in terms of, you know, 10 years guaranteed forever and ever and ever, that's what it means no matter what you do, no matter --

TAPPER: Like the Supreme Court.

URBAN: Like the Supreme Court. Exactly. Well, not even the Supreme Court. I think if you know the Supreme Court, you get kind of booted if you did something that badly. But the bigger question is, the BDS movement on campus, right, has been existing.

TAPPER: The Boycott, Divestment --

URBAN: Divestment, Sanction --

TAPPER: -- of Israel. Yes.

URBAN: But it's been going on for a long time. One of my good friends ran this organization called Campus Maccabees, right, which kind to try to battle back and push back on this for years that's been going on. And he would kind of, you know, sound the alarm bell for years and years, and everybody kind of poo pooed (ph) the way it wasn't real. And now we see it in full, you know, bursting glory, if you want to say --

TAPPER: Yes.

URBAN: -- in that term. But it's -- and campuses all across America, it's a problem. And we need to figure out why these young people feel it's OK to have these antisemitic views.

TAPPER: So, Margaret, I want to play the sound and get your reaction. Another moment from the hearing, Columbia University's president struggled to answer about specific student chants that we've all become quite familiar with since October 7. Take a listen. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REP. LISA MCCLAIN (R-MI): Mobs shouting "From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free" or "Long live the infantada (ph)," are those antisemitic comments?

SHAFIK: When I hear those terms, I find them very upsetting. And I have heard --

MCCLAIN: That's a great answer to a question I didn't ask. Is that fall under definition of antisemitic behavior? Yes or no? Why is it so tough?

SHAFIK: Because it's a difficult issue.

MCCLAIN: Maybe I should ask your task force. Does that qualify as antisemitic behavior? Those statements? Yes or no?

SHIPMAN: Yes.

MCCLAIN: OK. Do you agree with your task force?

SHAFIK: Yes. We agree. The question is what to do about it.

MCCLAIN: Yes. So the -- so, yes, you do -

(END VIDEO CLIP)

[17:30:04]

TAPPER: OK. It's the intifada, not the infantada. But in any case, what do you make of the exchange?

TALEV: Close enough.

TAPPER: What do you make of the exchange?

TALEV: It's interesting, before this testimony today, a group of about two dozen Jewish faculty at the university preemptively published something sort of questioning whether this is really the right theater for these conversations, sort of suggesting that Congress, these congressional hearings, have been highly politicized.

And in the words that I saw around the commentary around this, that it was sort of a trap, that there was a trap for a college president. So I think she walked into the trap on that question, you know. And this is, again, this is the balancing act. It is not that she isn't sure whether anti-Semitism is OK. That's obviously not what she's struggling with. It is balancing that act between allowing people to express their views but ensuring that people are physically safe on campus. There are red lines. The genocide is never acceptable when you talk about it, when you're there under the klieg lights trying to, you know, walk the correct line, it is a highly politicized environment. And that's what you saw her trying to navigate right there.

TAPPER: Yeah, difficult stuff. David Urban, Meghan Hays, Margaret Talev, thank you so much. Appreciate it.

There's a brand new court filing in the hush money cover up case that lays out prosecutors plans if Donald Trump does as he says he will and testifies in his own defense. Stay with us.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[17:35:30]

TAPPER: In our Law and Justice Lead, a new filing today in Donald Trump's criminal hush money trial. And it just so happens to contain the former president's long list of past legal troubles, not all the way back to the 70s, but more recent ones. It's a standard move in New York state trials.

It says if the defendant chooses to testify, prosecutors have, you know, can bring up any past misconduct and criminal acts, and -- but they have to let him know, and today's the day. Remarkably, the former president has a few of them, including being forced to pay for falsifying business records, forced to pay damages for defamation against E. Jean Carroll, forced to pay fees for a bad faith lawsuit against Hillary Clinton.

The judge in this case will now have to decide which, if any of these are relevant enough to be brought up before a jury. With us now, former Trump attorney, Tim Parlatore. And we should point out, Tim, this only comes if they need it in the view of the prosecutors, to undermine the president's credibility and only if he chooses to testify. Do you think he's going to ultimately testify?

TIM PARLATORE, FORMER TRUMP ATTORNEY: I don't think he will. But, you know, litigating a motion like this is a very important factor in making that determination, and that's why it has to be done at the beginning of the trial. And so you want to really have an idea of, you know, what is and is not out of bounds before you make that decision.

But honestly, I don't think that he should or will testify in this case because I don't think that he has anything to add. It's just -- it's an unnecessary risk.

TAPPER: So let's talk about some of these issues that will come up in what's called in New York a Sandoval hearing.

PARLATORE: Yes.

TAPPER: Do you think that it is relevant? And we had some other lawyers talking about this, the Leticia James case. Attorney General Letitia James saying that Donald Trump falsified business records and the judge ordered $355 million or whatever it was some unbelievable thing. I can't even wrap my brain around it.

The argument would be it's -- it goes to credibility. If he has been adjudicated as not being honest and pay and fined accordingly that's relevant.

PARLATORE: Correct. I do think that that one is going to be problematic for them because it is something that's currently being contested on appeal, and it is also something that is so closely, you know, paralleling this, where it's a falsifying business records, that it could be one of those things that they will find is more prejudicial than probative. And so I think a judge probably would disallow that, but it is certainly something that I would have expected them to raise.

TAPPER: So this week, both the prosecution and defense and the judge are focused on jury selection. They've already seated seven jurors.

PARLATORE: Yes.

TAPPER: Are you surprised with how quickly it's going?

PARLATORE: I am. I thought the jury selection was going to take a lot longer. And, you know, the fact that they're already at seven, I mean, they're going to finish by the end of the week.

TAPPER: And what do you think the defense is doing right now in terms of preparing for tomorrow when they're going to be interviewing more of the potential hundreds that could be picked to fill the remaining, I guess, five jurors and six alternates, 11 spots?

PARLATORE: Well, they're definitely focusing on the past social media behavior of these potential jurors. It was something that they used quite effectively in the first day of showing how certain people had made posts years ago. In some cases, that would be something that would be basis for a challenge for cause. So I think that they're primarily focusing on anything they can figure out in the backgrounds or social media activities of the people that they're going to be dealing with tomorrow.

TAPPER: So Trump's team has been concerned about finding an impartial jury in Manhattan, which is heavily Democratic, obviously, we went through some of the jurors that have been picked so far. One's a corporate lawyer, one's a civil litigator.

PARLATORE: Very unusual to have that many lawyers on a jury.

TAPPER: Yes. Well, first of all, what do you think, is that good or bad to have lawyers on the jury?

PARLATORE: It depends on the case. Yes. I've never had one, but, yes, it certainly depends on the case. If you're trying to mount a technical defense and have them really stick to what the law is, then having an attorney on the jury can be a very good thing, so.

TAPPER: Yes. But, you know, lawyers I've had on my panels, if I ever say to them, like, well, what do you say, you know, to people who think that this is just a pissy little charge? You're taking a misdemeanor and adding another misdemeanor, morphing it into a felony and you're treating, you know, people say, no one other than Trump would be treated that way.

And there are lawyers who say that's not true. And like, they get not Trump hating lawyers, just people say, no, this is exactly the kind of thing that district attorneys bring. So it also could work the other way I think.

[17:40:07]

PARLATORE: I've tried cases like that in Manhattan before where misdemeanors were turned into felonies. And so, yes, it is something that happens. And I think having lawyers on the jury that can, again, depending on which way they vote. The problem with having a lawyer on the jury is that they can be a very strong voice and influence the rest of the panel. And so if they are, you know, strong to one side or the other, then that can sway everybody else on the panel.

TAPPER: What do you make of what happened yesterday? Trump was apparently making eye contact with potential jurors. He would monish -- he was admonished by Judge Merchan for muttering while one of them was being questioned. Judge Merchan said, I won't have jurors, potential jurors intimidated. What did you make of that? And did you have flashbacks about how difficult it was to tell Donald Trump what to do?

PARLATORE: You know, making eye contact with jurors is not a bad thing. You know, it's certainly something that I do. It's something that, you know, if a juror --

TAPPER: Yes. But you do it, like, with your eyes wide open, you're all being sympathetic and likeable. It sounds like there was some glowering going on, maybe.

PARLATORE: That certainly does sound like that. And also, what did he mutter? You know, that could be problematic, you know, whatever he muttered. But I think that, you know, the judge, you know, certainly cut it off. And as I understand it, that juror was not seated anyway.

TAPPER: Tim Parlatore, thank you so much. Always good to have you on.

A deadly civil war, millions displaced and starving. Up next to brutal conflict that is not getting enough of the world's attention. Stay with us.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[17:45:31]

TAPPER: In our World Lead, an unfathomable humanitarian crisis has been unfolding in Sudan, and much of the world may not know just how dire it is, 8 million people, 8 million, including 2 million children under the age of five, have been forced to flee their homes to escape the horrors of war. This is according to Doctors Without Borders. CNN's Larry Madowo reports now for us on the grim one year marker of Sudan's civil war.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

LARRY MADOWO, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): Fourteen thousand killed, more than 8 million people forcibly displaced from their homes, accusations of rape, murder and horrific abuses. Sudan is on the brink, begging the world to see what's happening and send real help.

BASHIR AWAD, RESIDENT OF SUDAN (through translator): All countries of the world are busy with the rest of the world, but we are third world countries. No one is concerned about us. That is why we all suffered.

MADOWO (voice-over): Suffering so grave that half the population need humanitarian aid. A brutal war between the Sudanese Armed Forces and a rival paramilitary group, the rapid support forces, just entered its second year. Nothing was spared, and civilians trapped in the conflict zone are traumatized.

DR. MAYMOUNA AL-BAKRI, RESIDENT OF SUDAN (through translator): We were inside our house when we were looted, robbed and beaten. All of this happened to us. They took our money and gold and even took my laptop.

MADOWO (voice-over): The U.S. is the largest donor of humanitarian aid to Sudan. And just days ago, Washington pledged another $100 million in emergency aid, bringing the total amount donated since the start of the conflict to $1 billion. But Secretary of State Antony Blinken has accused the warring parties of blocking vital aid civilians and egregious abuses.

ANTONY BLINKEN, SECRETARY OF STATE: Both the SAF and RSF have carried out war crimes, including rapes, torture, extrajudicial killings, and other human rights abuses.

MADOWO (voice-over): Commanders for the SAF and the RSF have previously denied such allegations. With the world seemingly powerless to stop it, Amnesty International warns that the war in Sudan is likely to continue and cause more civilian suffering.

MADOWO: If these strong statements and condemnation from the U.S. and the U.N. and the African Union have not worked in Sudan, so what's the fastest way to resolve the conflict?

ABDULLAHI HASSAN, SUDAN RESEARCHER, AMNESTY INTERNATIONAL: Exert pressure on the warring parties to end violations against civilians to end indiscriminate attacks against civilians, to allow humanitarian access, and to ensure they are held accountable for the violations they are committing in Sudan.

MADOWO (voice-over): Larry Medowo, CNN, Nairobi.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

TAPPER: And our thanks to Larry Madowo for that report.

Also in our World Lead today, among the pro-Palestine protests across the country this week, this image from Yale caught our eye. It's a poster honoring Walid Daqqa. Walid Daqqa was the longest serving Palestinian prisoner in an Israeli jail. He died of cancer while in custody last week. The international had called for Daqqa, who was in his 60s to be released on humanitarian grounds after he was diagnosed with bone marrow cancer in 2022.

Amnesty issued a statement saying, quote, death in custody of Walid Daqqa is a cruel reminder of Israel's disregard for Palestinians right to life. It's an interesting turn of phrase there, a disregard for Palestinians right to life. Much of the news media coverage of Walid Daqqa's death after his 38 years in prison was along these lines.

Many stories, barely, if at all, even mentioned why Walid Daqqa was in the Israeli prison to begin with. He was in prison because he was part of a militant group that killed this 19-year-old, Moshe Tamam. If the coverage mentioned Tamam at all, that called him an Israeli soldier, which he was in the sense that virtually every Israeli 19-year-old is a soldier because that country has conscription.

But at the time that he was kidnapped and murdered, Tamam was not serving as a soldier. He was on leave and he was visiting his girlfriend. In 1984, Walid Daqqa was part of the PFLP, the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine. The original mission of his cell was to kidnap an Israeli soldier into Syria, bring him to Syria to use as a bargaining chip. That's according to Israeli security sources.

[17:50:00]

So a PFLP cell commanded by Walid Daqqa kidnapped Moshe Tamam at bait lead junction. At first, they hid him in one of the terrorists houses for two days, the Israeli security source told me. But when they realized that they would probably get caught on their way to Syria, they decided to murder him.

Moshe Tamam was taken to an olive grove near Mevo Dotan, where the members of PFLP shot him once in the head and once in the chest, killing him. They then abused the body with a knife, unquote. His corpse was found four days after his abduction. Now, Walid Daqqa was not the shooter, and he denied his involvement and commanding role in the PFLP cell. But he went through a trial.

And the court ruled that Walid Daqqa was an equal participant in the murder of this 19-year-old Israeli. In prison, Walid Daqqa became a writer, and by some accounts, he matured and changed, which, of course, erases the murder in which he participated not at all. It's not as if the Israeli government is beyond criticism for any of this, for how it's treated Walid Daqqa, or for not allowing him to visit with his family before he died.

The progressive Israeli newspaper Haaretz wrote an editorial excoriating the Netanyahu government, in particular, National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir. Quote, the first and foremost of this government's racists, Haaretz says, for tearing down the Daqqa family's mourning tent, arresting five Daqqa family members, and for refusing to return the body to the family.

The right wing Israeli education minister is calling for Tel Aviv University to fire Dr. Anat Matar, who was Walid Daqqa's friend. She's a philosophy lecturer, quote, for daring to eulogize him, according to Haaretz. I asked Moshe Tamam's niece, Ortal Tamam, who never got to meet her uncle, what she thought of all of this. She said, quote, instead of leaving us alone for the following years, the murderer, Walid Daqqa, kept being a terrorist from his prison cell. She said, he was glorified by our enemies. They teach about him in schools. They made a play about him. He was an inspiration to many other terrorists who later followed his footsteps and murdered innocent victims.

She continued, the most upsetting thing is that while we lost my uncle when he was only 19, Amnesty International, which is supposed to be an international human rights organization, glorifies this evil murderer, not even mentioning what he did. They are actually doing international gaslighting to terror victims. The truth doesn't matter to them, unquote. It is not surprising the degree to which too many people involved in this conflict are not able to see the humanity of innocent folks on the other side.

It's tragic and it's hideous, and it's led to an awful loss of life on October 7th and since October 7th. But it's not surprising. War is awful. But a prime minister whose political survival depends on anti- Arab zealots like Itamar Ben-Gvir can only lead to decisions rooted in this inability to see humanity in an Arab face.

And the degree to which too many journalists and people in the human rights community have blocked out the humanity in an Israeli face is also problematic. Quote, it is heart wrenching that Walid Daqqa has died in Israeli custody, said Amnesty International. Heart wrenching?

I ask this sincerely. Does it wrench the heart of anyone at Amnesty International that 19-year-old Moshe Tamam was murdered? Anyone? Let's give Ortal Tamam the last word. Quote, myself just as most Israelis aspire to live in peace, but this will never happen if the world makes heroes from the terrorists who murder us. Coexistence will only happen with those who believe in our right to exist, unquote.

We'll be right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[17:58:27]

TAPPER: Leads around the world now, and new pictures of the extraordinary flooding in the southeastern Arabian Desert, where a year's worth of rain fell in less than a single day. Videos from Dubai show airliners on flooded runways and streets inundated with water.

In neighboring Oman, at least 10 people died in flash floods. The unusual storm blew off the Arabian Peninsula, picked up moisture over the Gulf of Oman and dumped that record rainfall.

The opposite problem, drought is plaguing parts of Mexico. A popular tourist destination, Lake Patzcuaro, in the southwestern part of the country, has lost at least half of its volume. People can walk across land that used to be covered by water. Here's how it used to look. And it isn't just a problem of too little rain. As the drought continues, thieves are illegally making off with what water is left in the lake, water thieves? I'm not making that up.

In our Money Lead, a ceremony here in Washington today marked the release of a new quarter, the reverse side, honoring former Hawaii Congresswoman Patsy Takemoto Mink. Congressman Patsy Mink, the first woman of color ever elected to the House of Representatives. It was in 1965. During her time in Congress, Congresswoman Mink promoted women's equality in education and in athletics. She died in 2002, the year that Caitlin Clark was born.

And in our things, you don't see everyday lead, how about an elephant roaming the streets of Butte, Montana? Evel Knievel, sure. But an elephant? There's a circus in town. And Viola The Elephant apparently got spooked by a car backfiring as she was being washed in the civic center parking lot. And as is Viola's want, she ran away. After a little sightseeing, she stopped to munch on some grass, and the circus folk caught up, loaded her onto a trailer and took her back to the show. No harm done, apparently.

[18:00:21]

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 podcasts. The news continues on CNN with Wolf Blitzer right next door in a place I like to call The Situation Room. See you tomorrow.