Return to Transcripts main page

CNN News Central

Now: Trump Jury Deliberating; Alito Says He Will Not Recuse From Jan. 6 Cases Despite Flag Controversy; CNN Analysis: U.S. Munitions Used In Deadly Rafah Attack. Aired 1:30-2p ET

Aired May 29, 2024 - 13:30   ET

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

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[13:32:55]

BRIANNA KEILAR, CNN HOST: Just in, we're told that Trump allies and advisers believe everyone minute jurors stay behind closed doors, hashing out this case, that it's better for the former president.

Earlier today, though, Trump didn't sound so confident.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DONALD TRUMP, FORMER PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: Listening to the charges from the judges, as you know, very conflicted and corrupt because of the confliction, very, very corrupt. Mother Teresa could not beat these discharges.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

KEILAR: All right, let's discuss the case with one of Trump's former attorneys. David Schoen represented the former president during his second impeachment trial.

David, I wonder what you think about what we're hearing from allies and advisers that the more time -- and of course, you know, there's some preliminary stuff the jury has to work through, obviously. But if this does drag on, that it is better for Trump.

Do you agree with that?

DAVID SCHOEN, FORMER TRUMP ATTORNEY IN SECOND IMPEACHMENT TRIAL: I think that's possible if it really drags on. But we're certainly not there yet.

I think that, at a minimum, what would take the jury, if they are out a long time, I think that without coming up with any result or prediction about any results, I think the idea of finding what the target crime might be could take a long time.

Which is what I think is a fundamental deficiency in the indictment.

KEILAR: Yes, that is something -- obviously, that's part of the work they have to do here. And you have issues with that.

Where do you think this case is as the jury is beginning these deliberations?

SCHOEN: You know, again, we don't have a crystal ball. But I personally think the jury has made up their minds some time ago, one way or the other, on this case.

I do think, though, the jury instructions are complicated. And you know, that's going to take some time. I'm sure they want to do their job properly, especially since you've got two lawyers on there. And they're certainly taking it serious. Basically, guide the others, perhaps. Or they may want to stay out of the picture.

But I think that -- I personally think that the jurors have made up their minds.

KEILAR: Does -- do you see that based on that's often where a jury is or do you say that based on this particular case and the way it was presented?

[13:35:05]

SCHOEN: Based on this particular case and the way it was presented. I think, first of all, it was relatively long for this kind of a charge. Although this kind of charge exactly is really unprecedented.

But I mean, with the underlying facts here, it was a relatively long case. So the jury heard it.

I think in an emotional case like this, with sort of sexy evidence and that sort of thing, you know, jurors make up their mind often on a gut level. And they either think, you know, they don't like Donald Trump and, therefore, he's guilty with whatever he's charged with.

Or they want to parse through things, or they think there's no crime that's been charged here.

That's -- that's my view, at least.

KEILAR: What -- you've been around Trump. Certainly, when Congress was considering his fate in that particular case, the second impeachment.

What's it like for him, for his lawyers as well, as they're waiting for the jury to deliberate.

SCHOEN: Yes. Look, I think he's certainly angry about being in this position the first place. On the other hand, he's pumped up by the crowds that have come out to see him.

I think that he accurately recognizes that, every time one of these cases is brought, and we -- he goes up in the polls.

I think there's a significant part of the public that feels these are politically motivated prosecutions. So that part of it is upbeat. But of course, he doesn't like to be in this position.

I don't know how he felt. I didn't talk to him in the last day or two. I don't know how he felt about how the lawyers did. I'm not a fan of the performance that I saw on the closing. But you know, that's a matter of opinion. I'm sure.

KEILAR: Why not? Why didn't you like it?

SCHOEN: Well, I think that, first of all, I thought it was a bit rambling. I don't think the kind of time either side took should have been necessary to do a hard-hitting close.

I think that if Michael Cohen is the centerpiece of your close, you come in not with thank you, mumbling a little bit and all that. You come in with a compendium of Michael's -- Michael Cohen's prior inconsistent statements in one form after another. If that's going to be your centerpiece.

I think this case though can be won in closing on the less sexy issues. That is the nature of the crimes charged. You had some evidence you could pull from, why they might be reasonably called legal expenses, why you don't even get to the misdemeanor. You have a pull-down menu, things that might resonate with them.

But I would have done it, I think, in a shorter timeframe. I don't like the idea of a 10-point checklist. If I'm on the other side, I'm just going to go right through it and check them off.

And as clever as it sounds, I personally -- this is just my gut, my reaction -- I don't like this idea of gloat, greatest liar of all time. Cohen is a liar. He lied on many occasions. But it doesn't -- it's not hard to come up with a more offensive liar, like Goebbels, as I've said before, someone like that.

And the other side of it is, the prosecution should affectively made him Trump's liar. And that's the way you're going to go with the thing.

So I don't like these sorts of catchphrases that they're easy comebacks for.

KEILAR: Yes, maybe on the campaign trail. We'll have to see how it works in the courtroom.

David, great to have you. David Schoen, thank you so much.

SCHOEN: Thank you very much.

KEILAR: So next on CNN NEWS CENTRAL, protests are erupting in cities across the world after Israels deadly airstrike on a tent camp in Rafah. The White House says the attack didn't cross President Biden's red line.

[13:38:24]

But will that change after a CNN analysis finds American-made munitions were used in it? We'll have that next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK) [13:43:23]

BORIS SANCHEZ, CNN HOST: Breaking news into CNN, Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito has just told lawmakers he will not recuse himself from cases involving January 6th, despite this recent flag controversy.

You might recall, earlier this month, "The New York Times" reported a picture showing an upside-down American flag flying outside his home just days before Joe Biden's inauguration.

We should point out, at the time, this was seen as a sign of protests by folks who believed that the 2020 election was stolen, a claim that was never backed by any evidence.

KEILAR: Yes. This was something happening at the time for sure. And days later, it was revealed that, last summer, an Appeal to Heaven flag -- you see it here flying -- seen flying outside another home owned by Alito. Both flags were carried by insurrectionists on January 6th.

We have CNN senior Supreme Court analyst, Joan Biskupic, joining us.

Joan, walk us through what Alito is saying here.

JOAN BISKUPIC, CNN SENIOR SUPREME COURT ANALYST: Sure. Actually, this is good that he's put this out. Because at least it's now in his own words to everyone.

There's -- these letters are addressed to House and Senate leaders, who have questioned whether Samuel Alito should recuse himself from two very important cases that the Supreme Court is now hearing, that trace back to January 2021 and the entire Stop the Steal effort, the January 6th storming of the U.S. capitol.

So here's the bottom line that you should know, is what he's saying is, "The two incidents involving the flags do not meet the conditions for recusal as set out in federal law and, therefore, he has an obligation to sit."

And the language of the ethics standard here goes to what a reasonable person might -- when a reasonable person might question the impartiality of a justice or a judge. And he is saying these two incidents do not meet that threshold.

[13:45:12]

And he goes on to explain the two incidents. The first one, which occurred in January 2021, was when an inverted upside-down U.S. flag was seen in front of his house. He states outright, "I had nothing whatsoever to do with the flying of the flag."

He goes on to talk about how his wife, Martha-Ann Alito, had put that up there in response to a pretty nasty squabble she was having with her neighbors.

And he stresses in that part of his letter, "As soon as I saw the flag, I asked my wife to take it down, but for several days, she refused."

Now, in these letters, Brianna and Boris, you do get a little bit of the tension between the two Alitos on this, that Martha-Ann was certainly bound and determined to have that flag up and Justice Alito says, when he realized what it meant -- or I'm not sure if you even ever realized what it meant. But when he saw it, he wanted it to take it down.

And he stresses in this letter, as he has in news reports to "The New York Times" and "Washington Post," that this really arose not from any statement that his wife, Martha-Ann was making about the Stop the Steal effort, but rather to this neighborhood spat.

And what he wants to reinforce is that, irrespective of her motives, they were not his motives.

Now, for the second flag, this was the Appeal to Heaven flag that flew over their summer home at the Jersey Shore in summer of 2023. That Appeal to Heaven flag, we know, has been used by some conservative lawmakers.

Again, some of whom have been associated with the Stop the Steal campaign. But others, who are just trying to make more of a conservative religion statement.

But irrespective of what it means to other people, Samuel Alito said that he did not realize that there was a political statement there.

And he said, "As I referenced the other flag event" -- this again was one that Martha-Ann had put up -- "My wife is an independently minded private citizen. She makes her own decisions and I honor her right to do so."

He said that that flag also that he had nothing to do with putting it up.

In this letter, I do have to note that he says outright, "My wife is fond of flying flags. I am not. My wife is solely responsible for doing -- putting up these flag poles at our residences and our vacation homes."

And then he goes on to list, in this letter to lawmakers at the House and Senate, all the different kinds of flags that Martha-Ann has flown, supporting sport teams, state and local flags, flags of nations from which her ancestors have come, flying the flags from places we've visited.

Bottom line is what he's saying is, look, my wife, this was all in the hands of my wife, Martha-Ann. It was not in my hands. I do not think that any reasonable observer would think I've been compromised on these cases.

And just to remind people of the two major cases that stem from January 6th that the justices are hearing, one has to do with whether the January 6th rioters to be subject to prosecution for corruptly obstructing an official proceeding. The other one, even bigger, has to do with whether Donald Trump should

be immune from criminal liability for his actions taken in the wake of the 2020 election as he protested the results of the balloting that validly gave Joe Biden the White House -- Bri, Boris?

SANCHEZ: Yes, Joan.

KEILAR: Wow.

SANCHEZ: Another instance of justice's spouse drawing scrutiny on the court.

Joan Biskupic, thanks so much for that update.

Stay with CNN. We'll be back in just moments.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[13:53:03]

SANCHEZ: A top Israeli official says that wiping out Hamas will require at least another seven months of fighting in Gaza, despite growing calls around the world for a ceasefire.

Today, we're getting a new look at some of the devastation following that deadly Israeli airstrike in Rafah. A camp for displaced Palestinians was hit, killing at least 45 people, injuring some 200 others.

Those stats according to the Palestinian Ministry of Health. Most of the victims apparently women and children.

A CNN analysis of video obtained from the scene reveals the munitions used in the deadly strike were made in the United States.

Four explosive weapons experts who reviewed the video said it showed the tail of a U.S.-made small-diameter bomb, a GBU-39.

And for the first time, video that's been geo-located by CNN and recorded today shows two IDF tanks moving further west into Rafah.

We want to discuss with the former is Israeli ambassador to the United States, Michael Oren.

Ambassador, thank you so much for being with us.

Do you believe Israel's initial explanation about this Rafah attacked, that it was a precise attack, but that it may have unintentionally set off weapons stored nearby?

MICHAEL OREN, FORMER ISRAELI AMBASSADOR TO THE U.S.: Good to be with you, Boris.

Of course. I believe that the Biden administration also believes that the Biden administration that Israel use the smallest possible caliber ammunition, the most precisely guided munitions -- the GBU-39 is the smallest such bomb in the Israeli Air Forces arsenal -- to target Hamas leaders. This is precisely what Israel did.

And so it is an investigation now about how this horrendous fire occurred. And it is horrendous. It's a terrible nightmarish event. That goes without saying.

But the two Hamas operatives were 200 yards away from that camp. And for a fragment from one of those bombs to travel that distance and set up that type of explosion is highly suspicious.

[13:55:01]

Right now, there's a strong feeling in the Israeli army that -- that there was a Hamas munitions depot underneath that encampment. And that possibly caused the explosion.

SANCHEZ: Ambassador, Netanyahu described this as a costly mistake. I'm wondering how you read the Biden administration's handling of this latest purported mistake.

Because this is now a string of deadly mistakes that the IDF has made since October. Not only the killing of aid workers, but the killing of hostages that were being held by Hamas.

And how much stock do you put into Biden's red line?

OREN: Let me just say this. I'm an old combat veteran, and usually in war, 20 percent of all casualties on our side or in any R.V. side, are from friendly fire. And we've had a tremendous number of Israeli soldiers killed by their own fire.

Because this is an immensely complex war in a densely built-up area where terrorists do not wear uniforms. They dress as civilians. They mix in with civilian populations. So, yes, terrible, terrible mistakes do occur.

And the victims of those other mistakes are not just aid workers and civilians, but also is Israeli soldiers themselves. And as you mentioned, hostages who managed to escape.

It's brutal affair war in any conditions. And in Gaza, it's almost indescribable.

I think that the Biden administration was very express in saying to Israel what its expectations were regarding the Rafah operation, that it not be a major incursion.

Certainly as rockets continued to fire on Tel Aviv, fired from Rafah, Rafah. Any other army, any other country would simply go in there and level the place. Israel's not doing that.

It's going in, in a very measured way, and using these small-caliber precision munitions, which the Biden administration requested that Israel use. So Israel is abiding by all of the requests of the Biden administration.

So if there's a red line out there, the red line would be, I would imagine, a major incursion into Rafah using much larger caliber weapons.

SANCHEZ: I'm curious about that distinction. Because a major ground offensive in Rafah, you already have tanks -- our cameras captured tanks going in there.

Do you have faith that the IDF is actually going to follow that advice from the White House and not cross that red line and not send more troops and more military equipment into that area?

OREN: Well, two tanks do not a major incursion make. Let's be very careful about that. Israel has hundreds and hundreds of tanks.

And while there may be a buildup of forces around Rafah and other -- and other places in Gaza, I think there's a deep desire on the part of the Israelis to conclude the Rafah campaign generally, as soon as possible.

Because Hezbollah continues to fire dozens of rockets at the north every single day. And 60,000 Israelis remain displace. The entire northern part of the country is uninhabitable.

And Hezbollah is a much greater threat than Hamas'. Hezbollah is a strategic threat that really could threaten Israel's fundamental security. So Israel wants to conclude that Rafah operation as soon as possible.

But also wants to stay on the right side with the Biden administration. And I think there's tremendous pressure on the Israeli government to actually ordered a much larger operation into Gaza -- into Rafah as those missiles continue to fall on Tel Aviv, shot from Rafah.

(CROSSTALK)

SANCHEZ: I hate to cut you off. But respectfully, I wonder where you -- where you draw that assessment that you believe that Israel wants to follow the advice of the United States.

When Benjamin Netanyahu has essentially said that he is going to see this war through to whatever extent it needs to go to finish Hamas, despite what the United States has told him about the death and the killing of innocent civilians.

OREN: Well, to the best of my knowledge, Boris, the Biden administration is still signs onto Israel's war goals of destroying Hamas. I don't think that's changed at all.

I think there are differences of opinion about the morning-after scenario. And I think -- I think Israel could do much more to meeting the Biden administion's expectation there.

Either disagreements about the long-term peace process, I think, again, Israel could go up further to meeting the Biden administrations wishes there.

But the fundamental goals of the war remain unchanged. And this is not Netanyahu's war. Hamas didn't attack (INAUDIBLE). Hamas attacked the people of Israel. And the people of Israel are very firmly behind the continuation of the war to remove the threat of Hamas.

Again, as rockets continue to fall on our communities. It's not as if Hamas has been limited in any way. There will be debate in Israel over whether Israel should agree to a temporary ceasefire, not a permanent ceasefire, in return for the release of a certain number of hostages.

There's going to be debate about the number of hostages that we would accept, the number of Palestinian terrorists, prisoners to be released from our jails in exchange for those hostages. There'll be debated.

I believe -- and I'm not a spokesman for the government, Boris. I believe that if Hamas were to put a realistic proposal on the table for the release of hostages in return for a temporary ceasefire, I think that Israel would accept it.

SANCHEZ: It just does seem that there has been a disconnect between the White House and the Israeli government, specifically with Netanyahu, over the deaths of civilians.