Return to Transcripts main page

The Lead with Jake Tapper

Prosecution Presents Conspiracy And Cover-Up Versus Trump; Juror Concerned Over Media Coverage; Pro-Palestinian Protests Sweeps Through U.S. Colleges; Robert Kraft Condemns Anti-Semitism At Columbia University; Supreme Court To Decide If Cities Can Punish People Who Are Homeless; U.S. Animation Studios Work Found On North Korean Server. Aired 5-6p ET

Aired April 22, 2024 - 17:00   ET

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

[16:59:41]

JAKE TAPPER, CNN HOST: And welcome to "The Lead." I'm Jake Tapper. This hour, NFL owner Robert Kraft will be here. He's a Columbia alum. The school's Jewish Center for Jewish Student Life is named after him. And now, Mr. Kraft says he has lost confidence in the university.

Coming up, his strong reaction to Columbia's handling of tents and at times harassing protests against Israel, prompting questions about the safety of Jewish students on campus.

Plus, investigating how Hollywood production work ended up on Internet servers that belong to North Korea. Did someone at a U.S. studio unknowingly outsource animation work? CNN is following the trail.

And leading this hour, opening statements and testimony from a key witness today in the unprecedented criminal trial against a former president of the United States, Donald Trump. The prosecution's main message, that Donald Trump and his allies were involved in a criminal conspiracy and cover-up.

CNN's Paula Reid is outside the courthouse. Paula, how did the prosecution and the defense lay out their cases today before the jury?

PAULA REID, CNN CHIEF LEGAL AFFAIRS CORRESPONDENT: Well, Jake, we heard dueling interpretations of events roughly eight years ago. Prosecutors said, look, this is election interference, plain and simple. They alleged that these payments to Stormy Daniels were part of a conspiracy to influence the 2016 election.

Then they walked through, step-by-step, how they allege Trump, Cohen, and the then-publisher of the National Enquirer, David Pecker, worked to suppress negative stories. And then in the opening statement, they briefly referenced the paper trail that will be at the heart of this case.

But when it was time for defense attorneys to get up, they insisted their client is innocent. They said, look, there is no crime here, because Trump wasn't involved in this kind of paperwork. He is not involved with things like the 34 documents that constitute each of the counts he is charged with here. Now, they also emphasized that nondisclosure agreements are not

illegal. And interestingly, they took aim at Michael Cohen. That's very much expected. They went after his credibility. They suggested that this is someone who is, quote, "obsessed with getting Trump." But it was surprising, Jake, that they also went after Stormy Daniels.

Now, it's not a guarantee that she will testify in this case because her testimony is not essential to proving the charges that prosecutors have filed here. But it's clear the defense team expects her on the stand, which is part of why they decided to target her in these opening statements.

And then the jury heard briefly from the first witness, David Pecker. It was pretty lighthearted testimony, questions about his age, his occupation, even got a few laughs. That will continue tomorrow. It's unlikely, though, either side will be laughing for long.

TAPPER: So last week in court, there was what's called a Sandoval hearing, which basically addressing how much Trump can be asked about some of his past criminal cases if he ultimately decides to testify, as he promised he would. So today the judge weighed in on which cases the prosecution could bring up if Trump testifies.

REID: Yeah, there were four big issues that the Trump team was trying to prevent prosecutors from being able to ask Trump about if he takes the stand. And they lost on three out of the four. So, the judge found that they can ask Trump about the recent civil fraud trial against the Trump Organization, Trump and some of his adult children.

Then they also said they can ask about violations of the gag order in that case. They can also ask about the Eugene Carroll defamation cases, but they cannot ask about a totally separate line of inquiry, lawsuits related to a, quote, "frivolous lawsuit" that Trump filed against former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. So that can't come in, but the rest of it can.

So that's certainly not the way the Trump defense team hoped that would go. And it may give them pause about putting their client on the stand. But I'm not sure, Jake, in talking with my sources, it does appear this is something they're seriously considering, having Trump testify at some point in this trial.

TAPPER: All right, Paula. Let's bring in Renato Mariotti, the former federal prosecutor and host of the podcast "It's Complicated." Renato, the opening statement by Trump's lawyer essentially argues that Trump was in the White House and had no idea that false business records were being created and he should not be held liable for the actions of others. How do you rate that argument?

RENATO MARIOTTI, FORMER FEDERAL PROSECUTOR: I think that's the best argument that Trump's team has available. In other words, the hush money scheme itself is not what Trump is charged with. He's charged with false statements and business records. And I think his best argument is, you know, he wanted to cover this up because it was going to generate bad press, but he had no idea how that was going to be recorded in the books and records of the Trump organization. Obviously, there are issues with that argument. It's not a perfect

argument, but I think that's likely the best argument that they have for an outright victory and what I think his lawyer is going to be focusing on in the weeks ahead.

TAPPER: Paula, prosecutors' opening statements referred to Trump's actions as a conspiracy multiple times. For example, here's what they said about a 2015 meeting between Trump, David Pecker from National Enquirer, and Michael Cohen, Trump's lawyer. They, quote, "formed a conspiracy, prosecutors said, at that meeting to influence the presidential election by concealing negative information about Mr. Trump in order to help him get elected," unquote.

And we should point out, though, even though they're calling this a conspiracy, Trump's not facing any charges of conspiracy. Why not?

[17:04:59]

REID: Well, look, this is a difficult case, and we know that because, of course, the Justice Department passed. It's been around for many years. Many legal experts weren't sure if this could be a case that could be successfully prosecuted. So, when you have a case like this, you have to go with what you know you can prove beyond a reasonable doubt.

And here they are charging this as falsifying documents, but they're charging it as a felony, connecting it to federal election campaign interference, even though he's not specifically charged with that. The complexity of this case, the way it's being charged right now, Jake, this is going to be something that the defense will seize on.

And it's clear, the prosecutors likely would not want to add conspiracy here because it would further complicate the case, likely make it -- less likely that they would get a guilty verdict.

TAPPER: And that's something we should underscore for our viewers. This is not going to be easy for the prosecution. This is going to be a lift. And, Renato, the defense is coming out swinging at two of the prosecution's three witnesses, three biggest witnesses.

They're painting Michael Cohen as obsessed with Trump, and they're casting Stormy Daniels as an opportunist. They're suggesting that they never had a sexual encounter, Stormy Daniels and Donald Trump. Do you think that's effective?

MARIOTTI: I don't think the attack on Stormy Daniels is effective. I actually think that's a mistake on their part. They should actually just say, you know, they can dispute her, whether she's truthful or not. But I think trying to attack her is, you know, not where they want to go. There's going to be people in the jury who are sympathetic to her.

Unlike Michael Cohen, she's not a criminal. In fact, she's been the victim of crime on behalf of, you know, her own attorney committed. I think that the attacks on Cohen, though, are going to be very successful. I mean, he's a convicted liar, convicted fraudster. There's a lot for the defense to work with him and I think that's why

the prosecution is going to be focusing a lot on the documents and the inferences that they are going to argue can be drawn from the documents.

TAPPER: Paula, tomorrow morning there's going to be this hearing about whether Donald Trump has violated his gag order with multiple Truth Social posts that attack witnesses, attack others that he's been told he's not allowed to attack. He is allowed to attack Alvin Bragg, the D.A., and the judge.

He also claimed with no proof that undercover liberal activists were lying to the judge to get onto the Trump jury. He's not allowed to attack the jury. Do you think the judge is going to go along with prosecutors' claim that Trump violated his gag order? And if he does, do you think he'll fine him? What will he do?

REID: Well, right now, prosecutors are asking for fines for what they allege are at least seven instances of Trump violating the gag order. They also want him to be put on notice that he could be sanctioned. So, yes, I do expect that the judge is going to weigh in here, will likely issue fines, but will that matter? A fine? Of what size? Is it really going to make a dent in Trump's bank account?

A lot of issues here, but I think the most significant one for the judge to weigh is any impact of statements like that on the jury. Because we know that these people, they're doing their civic duty, but they are taking on a significant risk for themselves and their families.

And if we get into a situation where those people continue to feel under increased threat or they are outed online, that is something that if they go through the alternates and start to get too fewer than 12 jurors, that could create a mistrial. So that, I think, is the most serious thing that the judge has to find a way to address and get Trump to stop doing.

TAPPER: Renato, I wanted to ask you, last week when they were going through jury selection, somebody on a conservative channel started putting up details about one of the jurors. And everyone did that, put up details that we were allowed to have because the judge is trying to be transparent. But then started to suggest, oh, I don't know about this juror. I don't know about this one.

Donald Trump then re-Truth it on his social media post. Is that a violation?

MARIOTTI: I think it is. And just to be clear, what he did, Jake, is he didn't just press the button to re-truth or retweet. He actually typed out the words that this host said, Jesse Watters, word for word. And I think because he did that, he retyped them, I think the judge is more likely to find that he adopted those statements and made them his own, even if he put quotation marks around them.

I think the judge is going to find that to be a violation. But I agree with Paula. I don't know how much of $1,000 fine he's going to do about that. But there's no question in my mind that the judge is going to find that he violated the judge's order.

TAPPER: Renato, before you go today, after court wrapped up, Donald Trump questioned why this case was even brought by the state to begin with and not by the federal court. Take a listen.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DONALD TRUMP, FORMER PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: If this were such a great case, why didn't the Southern District bring it, who looked at it, turned it down? Why didn't numerous other agencies and law enforcement groups look at it? Because it was shown to everybody. And very importantly, why didn't the federal elections do anything about this? Because this is federal. It's not state. They're trying to make it a state case.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

[17:10:00]

TAPPER: What's your response to that, Renato?

MARIOTTI: Well, falsifying business records is a state offense and not a federal offense. And so, the bottom line is that there is a state offense here that's very straightforward to prove. Prosecutors felt like they could prove this case and the Feds didn't feel like they could prove, you know, the more broader crime of election fraud.

TAPPER: Paula, are the members of this jury sequestered? Are they in a hotel with no TVs and no Internet? Or are they allowed to go home potentially watching or reading the coverage around the case?

REID: Yeah, they are not sequestered at this point. This is something that, you know, of course, has been considered at one point. But it's not something that's being done in this case. The judge has acknowledged the environment of sort of threats and intimidation that they will face, which is why they are largely anonymous, though we can report some details.

Given the gravity of the situation, it is unclear if that's something the judge would reconsider. But it's not expected that they will be sequestered. It will be up to them to stay away from the news. Now, of course, staying away from this story, that means probably no late- night comedy shows, no talk shows. I mean, it's going to be hard to stay away from this case. They're going to have to make a concerted effort.

TAPPER: Although I should note that one of the reasons these jurors were picked is because it seemed like a lot of them stayed away from news or at least forming opinions about news. So maybe they're, you know, uniquely qualified for this. Renato Mariotti and Paula Reid, thanks to both of you.

Coming up, how Trump's former fixer Michael Cohen found a way to troll his old boss, as court wrapped up today.

Plus, will Donald Trump take the stand in his own defense? As he said multiple times now, he will. We'll talk about what he needs to say under oath, if so.

And a crisis at Columbia University sparking one of its biggest donors to threaten to no longer give money to his alma mater. What Robert Kraft thinks needs to be done to end the spike in anti-Semitism on that campus. Stay with us.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[17:15:00]

TAPPER: We're back with our "Law and Justice Lead," a, shall we call it, colorful Twitter post this afternoon from Michael Cohen, Donald Trump's former lawyer and fixer at the center of the hush money case. Cohen writing to Trump eloquently, "Hey, Von, let's say, poops in pants. That's not what he said, but you get the point. Your attacks on me stink of desperation. We're all hoping that you take the stand in your defense," unquote.

Let's discuss with J. Lee Meihls, a trial consultant with expertise in jury selection and witness preparation. So Lee, prosecution has likely been working to prepare Michael Cohen for his expected witness testimony against Trump. Should posts like this, you know, worry the prosecution at all? I mean, pretty out there.

J. LEE MEIHLS, TRIAL CONSULTANT: Yeah, I agree, and thank you so much for having me. Yeah, I think the problem is both sides are making this case about lies. And to borrow from Ted Boutros, famed lawyer at Gibson Dunn, he said, you can tell a lie a thousand times and it doesn't become a fact.

And I think that both sides, it's almost like "Seinfeld" has met the reality TV of "Opposite Day." And both sides are using the same themes, election interference, lies. And I think these kinds of posts or tweets or what have you by Cohen I think could become a problem for the prosecution.

TAPPER: Donald Trump has indicated multiple times that he would like to take the stand in his own defense. Do you think that's a good idea? If you were advising him, would you tell him that's a good idea? And if he does, because I'm anticipating you're going to say no, if he does take the stand, how will his defense team prepare him for what would likely be a rather brutal cross examination?

MEIHLS: Well, I imagine they would do several mock sessions with him in advance, hopefully with somebody not on the trial team who he doesn't have any kind of prior relationship with playing the prosecutor and really putting him through his paces. Just like when he's preparing for, you know, speechifying on the trail, the same kind of thing.

But, yeah, you're right. I would advise him probably not to take the stand. But I think he believes he's the only way he can win this case, although I think it's very much a toss-up.

TAPPER: Yeah, and we should just really make sure that our viewers and our listeners and readers understand this. Like this is a heavy lift, this case. Judge Merchan decided that if Trump does testify, he can be asked about several different cases in his past that his lawyers didn't want him to have to talk about, including the E. Jean Carroll verdicts. Will that make him less likely to testify, do you think?

MEIHLS: Well, Judge Merchan also, though, kind of reigned them in a bit, as I recall reading about the Sandoval hearing that they can talk about verdicts. They can't talk about amounts of, you know, amounts of verdicts which could make a difference. So, it's, you know, it's hard to know, but I think Trump -- he strikes me as somebody who's pretty fearless about those kinds of things and doesn't fear having to answer questions about it.

TAPPER: I want to talk for a second about juror number nine who called the court on Friday with concerns, understandable ones, frankly, over the media attention this case is getting. She met with the judge and lawyers today. She's staying on the jury. But could this be an issue with other jurors going forward? And what happens if they decide they want out because it's just not worth, frankly, the threats to them?

MEIHLS: The stress.

TAPPER: Yeah, the stress, for sure. But also, I mean, there are bad actors out there who might be prone to out jurors who don't want to be outed if they ultimately come down with a verdict that they don't like.

MEIHLS: Yeah, agreed. And we already saw two jurors who were sworn in the main jury of 12 who then were dismissed because they came back and said, can't do it.

[17:19:58]

Unlike jurors who were dismissed during voir dire, who went to the press afterwards because they were allowed to talk, who said, I didn't think that was fair. I'm fair. I could have been a fair juror.

But in this case, you know, you've got a juror who's already starting to feel the pressure. And I was surprised Judge Merchan only had six alternates selected. Now, I'm not in the courtroom, you know, please. I don't have a crystal ball. I don't see what's going on. But apparently both sides were there in chambers and got a chance to talk to her.

And in other, you know, cases that I've had over 500 jury trials, a case like this, I was surprised there weren't maybe even 12 alternates for this very reason.

TAPPER: I also want to get your take on one of the jurors seated in this trial, juror number two, an investment banker with a master's who follows Trump's Truth Social posts, as well as Michael Cohen on Twitter. He says he's seen quotes from Trump's book, "The Art of the Deal." Remember, this this man replaced the original juror number two, who was dismissed after she expressed concerns that, you know, part of her identity was made public by the media, not CNN. And we even had somebody on a conservative news channel questioning that original juror number two and whether or not that person could be relied upon. Did Trump potentially get a break by ending up with this new juror number two who's on Truth Social?

MEIHLS: On the surface that, again, not getting to see all the questions that were asked of the jurors or if I'm assuming both sides used all their strikes. But juror two, and then there's another juror on the main panel of 12 who also made statements during voir dire that seemed to be, you know, at least open to Trump's side of the story going in. So, I do think the government's got an issue there because it only takes one to (inaudible) a jury.

TAPPER: It only takes one. That's right. Meihls, thanks so much. Appreciate it.

MEIHLS: Thank you.

TAPPER: Coming up, billionaire NFL owner Robert Kraft, who's also a major donor to his alma mater, Columbia University, his strong reaction to the recent anti-Israel protests and anti-Semitic incidents at the school that have left many Jewish students saying they don't feel safe on campus. Stay with us.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[17:25:00]

TAPPER: In our "National Lead" today, anti-Israel encampments are popping up across several U.S. colleges, groups from Yale, Emerson, MIT, to name a few, are joining in solidarity, they say, with the protests happening at Columbia University, where Jewish students are increasingly facing harassment targeted with anti-Semitism, praise of terrorist groups and more, according to Jewish students there.

CNN's Shimon Prokupecz reports now from Columbia University, where many Jewish students are afraid to even walk on campus right now.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNKNOWN: Say it loud and say it clear. Liberation is near.

UNKNOWN: Liberation is near.

SHIMON PROKUPECZ, CNN SENIOR CRIME AND JUSTICE CORRESPONDENT: We're on the steps of Columbia University. There's a Jewish group here that's actually giving out free matzah as they get ready for Passover. And just across from them is the encampment, which has stirred so much emotion here on the campus with some of the Jewish students feeling unsafe.

SOPHIE ARNSTEIN, STUDENT: I consider myself a very brave person, but I won't deny that I've been physically intimidated and harassed.

BEN SOLOMON: I've felt like this is not a welcoming environment. I think it's a very difficult time for a lot of Jewish students. UNKNOWN: Let me forget the 7th of October.

PROKUPECZ (voice-over): Over the weekend, the protests turned rowdy. Disturbing videos show some protesters harassing Jewish students. Amid all this, a rabbi linked to the university urged Jewish students to stay home, saying recent events at the university have, quote, "made it clear that Columbia University's public safety and the NYPD cannot guarantee Jewish students' safety."

(On camera): This is the center of Columbia University, what they're calling the Gaza Solidarity Encampment, and an occupation here at the school as they want certain demands to be met by the school in terms of their support of Israel.

Why is it important for you to be out here, sleeping out here?

UNKNOWN: Yeah, just to show solidarity with the students that have already been arrested and obviously the people in Gaza.

PROKUPECZ: This is the tarp area, this is where many of the medical supplies, the food, there's coffee here, there's other goodies, just essential needs that many of the people may need who have been out here for several days.

UNKNOWN: I'm Jewish. A lot of the focus has been on like, you know, supporting Jewish students who have been facing anti-Semitism, but there has not been a lot of focus on, you know, Palestinian students who have been feeling anti-Islamic sentiments.

PROKUPECZ: How do your parents feel about it?

UNKNOWN: Good. They're proud of me, and I'm proud of them for that.

PROKUPECZ (voice-over): Last week, over 100 protesters, including some students, were removed from campus by New York police at the behest of the university and arrested on suspicion of criminal trespass. The move stirred more tension on campus, and by Monday morning, Columbia's president, Minouche Shafik, declared that all classes would be virtual for the day and that a reset was needed.

"I am deeply saddened by what is happening on our campus," she wrote in a statement. "These tensions have been exploited and amplified by individuals who are not affiliated with Columbia, who have come to campus to pursue their own agendas."

PROKUPECZ: Many of the students here are saying, who are graduating, are saying they're not sure what graduation is going to look like this year.

[17:30:03]

And those who are part of the encampment are saying that they intend to be here for graduation, that they're not leaving.

(END VIDEO CLIP) PROKUPECZ: Jake, I just want to now show you the scene outside. We're outside the school. We've spent a couple of hours on school grounds yesterday. But this is the site and sort of the area where there's been some of the most confrontation and drama because what happens is, is people outside here for the most part, that are not students, they stand out here and they chant and they say some very hurtful things towards the Jewish community. And this is where we see some of the drama and the confrontation. And I just want to show you here, you can see the NYPD. They are out here.

They're over here on this side. There's actually probably more officers out here than there are demonstrators. But the NYPD says, you know, they're out here every day. They will be standing by. And if the university was to call on them to come inside and try and remove any of the protesters or the encampment, which they did last week, they're willing to do that. But so far Columbia University is just telling everyone we need a reset and then they're going to come up with the next steps.

A big focus now is going to be that graduation. It's in just a few weeks, and how that's going to be handled and what's going to happen inside, Jake.

TAPPER: All right, Shimon Prokupecz outside Columbia University in New York, thanks so much.

Let's turn out a Robert Kraft, owner of the New England Patriots found of the foundation to combat anti-Semitism and a graduate of Columbia University, as well as a major donor to the university. The Jewish Center for Students on campus bears his name. Mr. Kraft, thanks for joining us. So you put out a statement saying in part that, quote, you're no longer confident that Columbia can protect its students and staff, and you say you're not comfortable supporting the university until corrective action is taken, unquote. What corrective action do you want to see taken?

ROBERT KRAFT, COLUMBIA COLLEGE CLASS OF 1963: Well, let me just clarify. I'm still willing to support the Kraft Center that houses all the Jewish students there under Brian Cohen's leadership and faculty that come, that has been a haven of safety. And look, I love Columbia. They gave me a scholarship when I really needed it and I had four wonderful years there. And I just love morning side heights. And to see what's going on there now, and I think we let it go way too far for months that people did things that there was no accountability.

You know, I think back when I went to Columbia, the Vietnam War was raging, and people spoke out and they paid the consequences, but they were willing to do it. They didn't wear masks, and they had accountability. And now we have to have accountability.

And for me to see that Columbia Professor Shai Davidai, you know, his credentials were taken away when he was speaking out and trying to protect the students versus some of the other activities there. That was sort of the turning point for me.

TAPPER: What -- Where do you draw the line on the speech that you think there needs to be accountability for? Because obviously, universities have a rich tradition and the United States of America has a rich tradition of freedom of speech, of protest. What crosses the line for you? And is there something different when it comes to behavior on campus where universities have, you know, more ability to punish a student than they do necessarily off campus, where there's, you know, free speech rights?

KRAFT: Yes. Well, I mean, I just can't believe in New York City at Columbia University, Jewish students are afraid to go to classes. It's just -- in the United States of America in 2024, it's amazing to me and horrible. And I just, you know, and there's somehow the organization of non-Columbia students getting on campus, coming there with their faces covered, you know, say -- they're, by the way, they're both professors and students within the university who say things that I think cross the line and there should be accountability.

I believe in free speech. Say whatever you want, but pay the consequences and don't have your face covered. I don't think that should be allowed.

TAPPER: What are you hoping to see the university do in response? I mean, the President Shafik, said this is a crisis. She's focused on the safety of students. She made today virtual. What more do you want her to do?

[17:35:06]

KRAFT: Well, I don't -- it should be a secure environment where young people are, look, those were four of the greatest years of my life, but I never felt scared or afraid or not willing to speak my opinion and have, you know, a certain empathy. And people listened, and there was a sense of compassion, not things that engendered hatred. And, you know, it is sort of the reason I started our foundation to combat anti-Semitism five years ago. I saw the roots of what was going on in this country. You know, it starts with the Jews, and then every other marginalized group is next, whether it's blacks, Asians, Hispanics, gay. And I want to protect this country and keep the values of what makes America great, all of our ancestors who came here and lived their dream.

You know, and I certainly did, and I've never seen things quite the way it is. And think in some ways, college campuses throughout America are the worst signs of what I've seen. And so I don't like stepping out the way I did today. But I think I'm saying what a lot of people feel, and that's why I've done it.

TAPPER: Where do you draw the line? Because obviously in Israel, there are thousands of people who protest against the Israeli military campaign in Gaza and against the Netanyahu government. Where do you draw the line at Columbia as to protests against what Israel is doing in Gaza and that which you find objectionable?

KRAFT: Well, you know, the whole Mid East situation is something that's different. And I think there's a lack of education on the situation, as you can see from the different groups that come up and speak. So, you know, that's something that I'm concerned about America and what's going on in this country, and to keep it open and free for all people of all backgrounds to do as they wish. I mean, that's the foundation of the country. It's founded by people fleeing England because they couldn't worship, you know, openly and fairly.

TAPPER: Do you have confidence in the president of Colombia, President Shafik?

KRAFT: I don't know her, and I think she's very well intentioned. I think, you know, I think what's going on college campuses, you don't have people who have had operating experience with difficult situations, and you need to take action and really not be afraid to have the courage to speak up. And when someone does something wrong, you know, there's accountability.

I think we have to look at what goes on with faculty. I think the whole faculty who have tenured and they're doing things in their classroom where they're not educating people, all different opinions, but spousing their opinion. And a lot of it is hatred today. And then they go home at 5 o'clock with no concerns. And I think they -- I think we have to look at this whole tenured faculty issue.

TAPPER: Robert Kraft, thank you so much for your time today. Appreciate it.

[17:40:00]

Coming up, is it a crime to sleep outside when there is nowhere else to go? Or is it cruel and unusual punishment to ticket someone just for sleeping in a tent? Those are the questions raised at the U.S. Supreme Court today in a critical case over homelessness in America. Stay with us. We're going to bring you our latest installment of our series, Homeless in America.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

TAPPER: Is it unconstitutional to punish an American for sleeping on the street outside with a blanket? That is the question at the center of a landmark U.S. Supreme Court case called Grants Pass versus Johnson. And today the high court heard oral arguments from that small city in Oregon which began fining people for sleeping outside in public spaces when they did not have anywhere else to go. The question is, does that fine constitute cruel and unusual punishment under the 8th Amendment? We're going to take a closer look at this issue now for our homeless in America series.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

CROWD: What do we do? Stand up, fight back.

TAPPER (voice-over): It's been called the most significant court case on homelessness in decades now reaching the U.S. Supreme Court. At the center of the case is Grants Pass, Oregon, a small town which like many others in America, has an affordable housing problem.

HELEN CRUZ, FINED FOR CAMPING: There is absolutely no housing in Grants Pass, Oregon. There is no shelter available for anybody that's out there. We have no place to go.

TAPPER (voice-over): Hundreds of homeless people in Grants Pass began setting up encampments in public parks. In 2013, the city stepped up its enforcement of anti-camping laws, banning anyone from sleeping outside with any kind of bedding, including a blanket, pillow, or even a cardboard box. Penalties included fines starting at $295 or 30 days in prison for repeat offenders.

CRUZ: I have a lot of tickets from Grants Pass. I was almost $5,000 worth.

TAPPER (voice-over): But with extremely limited public shelter space in Grants Pass, the people affected by the fines sued, saying the tickets violated their 8th amendment rights against cruel and unusual punishment.

CRUZ: We are human beings and we belong there, too. Just because we don't have everything that they have doesn't mean that we don't belong.

[17:45:03]

ED JOHNSON, DIRECTOR OF LITIGATION, OREGON LAW CENTER: People living outside, like all Americans, have the protection of the Bill of Rights and the protection not to be criminalized and punished for your status is one of the most fundamental, longstanding rights that we all have.

TAPPER (voice-over): The lower courts agreed, blocking the city from enforcing the law.

THEANE EVANGELIS, ATTORNEY, CITY OF GRANTS PASS, OREGON: The 8th amendment prohibits cruel methods of punishment that have fallen out of use. It has nothing to say about what policies cities can enact as a basic matter of health and safety and protecting everyone in the community.

TAPPER (voice-over): And now the decision is in the hands of the U.S. Supreme Court. And the court's ruling could impact how cities across the country handle the homelessness crisis. Republican Governor Ron DeSantis recently signed a law banning people from sleeping in public spaces in Florida.

GOV. RON DESANTIS (R-FL): This issue that has plagued communities across the country, where these homeless camps overwhelm just the quality of life.

TAPPER (voice-over): Democratic Governor Gavin Newsom of California filed a brief calling on the U.S. Supreme Court to, quote, establish a balance that allows enforcement of reasonable limits on camping in public spaces while still respecting the dignity of those living on our streets. People such as Helen, who have no way of paying the fines, say it ruins their credit, making it even harder for them to find housing.

CRUZ: It's pretty much just destroyed my credit. And, you know, when a person's so far down and they're just trying to get ahead, they can't. TAPPER (voice-over): Advocates say criminalization is expensive and does nothing to provide solutions to the housing crisis.

JESSE RABINOWITZ, CAMPAIGN & COMMUNICATIONS DIRECTOR, NATIONAL HOMELESS LAW CENTER: As rents become higher and higher, we will see more and more homelessness, and our elected officials need to respond with proven solutions like housing and services, not with jails and fines.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

TAPPER: The latest in our series on being homeless in America. The U.S. Supreme Court is expected to make a decision in this case by late June.

A shocking discovery from a cyber-sleuth tracking North Korean websites how it is animating concerns from U.S. companies and drawing attention to the rogue nation's digital capabilities. Stay with us.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[17:51:03]

TAPPER: Back with our World Lead, in a shocking discovery made by a cyber-sleuth while perusing the North Korean internet. A trove of animation sketches that may be meant for U.S.-based studios, while there's no evidence the American studios knew the work could have been outsourced to North Korea, the U.S. government does have strict rules against doing business with the hermit kingdom. CNN's Alex Marquardt speaks now with an expert who analyzed the files, which offer a rare window into the hermit kingdom's animation and programming prowess.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

ALEX MARQUARDT, CNN CHIEF NATIONAL SECURITY CORRESPONDENT (voice- over): 'Invincible" is a popular animated show streaming on Amazon Prime, with a third season on the way.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Your power's got to be due any day now, son.

MARQUARDT (voice-over): It's based on a comic book about a superhero teen.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I wasn't ready before.

MARQUARDT (voice-over): While its main character is all American, some animation in the new season may come from one of America's biggest foes, North Korea. Martyn Williams is a North Korea analyst at the Stimson center.

MARTYN WILLIAMS, STIMSON CENTER SENIOR FELLOW: I'll show you what we found.

MARQUARDT (voice-over): He shows us what was inside a recently discovered North Korean internet server.

WILLIAMS: There's a bunch of working files in here.

MARQUARDT (voice-over): Files including sketches and video from North Korea, which resemble the animation from two shows produced and streamed by American companies. Amazon's "Invincible" and another, coming soon called, "Iyanu: Child of Wonder," set to stream on Max, which, along with CNN, is owned by Warner Brothers Discovery. There's no evidence that the studios knew that any proprietary work was on a North Korean server.

WILLIAMS: At some stage in this production process, these files appear to being worked on by the North Koreans.

MARQUARDT (voice-over): There's a clip of "Iyanu" which hasn't been released yet.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Now, let me spare your life.

MARQUARDT (voice-over): Williams says a lot of American production work is outsourced, particularly to China, where it could then be subcontracted to North Koreans without the American company's awareness.

WILLIAMS: It's very common. Numerous Chinese companies have been sanctioned by the U.S. for working with North Korea, not just in animation, but in other areas as well.

MARQUARDT (voice-over): A draft of one animation has Chinese instructions translated into Korean. There's also this production sheet in English for "Invincible."

MARQUARDT: Is there any evidence that the American studios knew about this?

WILLIAMS: We didn't find any evidence that they had any direct knowledge of any of this. We found the names of some animations, we found the names of some U.S. companies, but nothing that concretely tied that back to the U.S. companies.

MARQUARDT (voice-over): Using North Korean labor would be a violation of U.S. sanctions. Max and the producer of "Iyanu" Lion Forge Entertainment declined to comment. Unique Studios, which co created the graphic novel series, did not respond. Skybound Entertainment, which produces "Invincible," told CNN it never approved outsourcing and would investigate.

WILLIAMS: It's just something that's very difficult to kind of figure out who you are working with, because once stuff starts getting outsourced, once stuff starts moving through the system, actually finding out who the person is at the other side of the keyboard is very, very difficult.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

MARQUARDT (on camera): The U.S. government does give American companies advice and guidance on what to look for, how to do their due diligence, to make sure that they know who they are working with. And Jake, that can be a lot of extra work, especially for smaller companies who don't necessarily have the bandwidth and need to outsource that production, that animation, that programming work.

But no matter the size of the company, it is very high stakes because the Treasury Department can bring lawsuits against these companies if they violate those U.S. sanctions.

[17:54:31]

TAPPER: Interesting story. Alex Marquardt, thanks so much. Appreciate it. We'll be right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

TAPPER: We've heard a lot about Donald Trump today in our Law and Justice Lead, but here's a new one. Plasmic Echo, Plasmic Echo. That's not the name of a new Florence and the Machine song. It's apparently the FBI's code name for its investigation into Trump's alleged mishandling of classified documents. The case name was just revealed in unredacted court filings in Special Counsel Jack Smith's criminal case against Trump. Plasmic Echo, whatever that means.

In the Sports Lead, New York Yankees Manager Aaron Boone found himself ejected from today's game for, well, for nothing.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: You're not yelling at me. I did what I supposed to do in check. I'm looking for him to get hit by the pit. Got anything else to say? You're gone. OK?

(END VIDEO CLIP)

TAPPER: So that was the umpire yelling towards the dugout. But we should note it was a fan in the stands who first did the talking. Boone just stood there and took it when a fan mouthed off again, the umpire blamed Boone, and Boone was out of there. I'm not usually one that defends Yankees, but still.

[18:00:02]

Taylor Swift's new album became the most streamed album on its first day across Spotify, Amazon Music and Apple Music. On Friday, "The Tortured Poets Department" got nearly 300 million streams on Spotify alone.

Before we sign off this programming note, CNN will have special coverage again tomorrow for another big day in the New York hush money cover up trial against Donald Trump. Former tabloid publisher David Pecker will be back on the stand. CNN's special coverage begins just before court resumes at 11:00 a.m. Our coverage continues now with Wolf Blitzer in the Situation Room. I'll see you tomorrow morning.