Return to Transcripts main page

CNN News Central

Interview With Former U.S. Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta; Hollywood Wrestles With Risky Election Endorsements; Trump Jury Deliberations Continue. Aired 1-1:30p ET

Aired May 30, 2024 - 13:00   ET

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

[13:00:30]

BORIS SANCHEZ, CNN HOST: We are on verdict watch, 12 jurors now hours into deliberations in former President Donald Trump's criminal hush money trial. We're following all the details from the courthouse.

And Hollywood stars wary of playing a leading role in President Biden's reelection campaign. Why some headliners think, this time, it may be too high-risk.

BRIANNA KEILAR, CNN HOST: And it's a kind of home loan that's giving 2008. One of the nation's largest lenders just launched a zero-down mortgage. It's got some housing experts worried.

We're following these major developing stories and many more all coming in right here to CNN NEWS CENTRAL.

SANCHEZ: The jury in former President Trump's hush money trial has resumed deliberations after rehearing key witness testimony.

I'm Boris Sanchez, alongside Brianna Keilar, in the nation's capital.

And the second day of deliberations kicked off today with the judge rereading parts of his jury instructions and with court reporters reading back portions of Michael Cohen and David Pecker's testimony.

KEILAR: And that includes Pecker's testimony about a call that he had with Trump about former Playboy model Karen McDougal and Pecker's testimony about his decision not to seek repayment from Trump for securing rights to McDougal's story in perpetuity, life rights, as they're known.

Court reporters also read back testimony from both Pecker and Cohen about a meeting at Trump Tower in 2015.

CNN chief legal affairs correspondent Paula Reid is with us now. She's there outside the courthouse in New York.

Paula, takeaways today so far.

PAULA REID, CNN CHIEF LEGAL AFFAIRS CORRESPONDENT: So, what really strikes me is how methodical the jury is clearly being in this historic task as they deliberate about Donald Trump's fate. And I would expect nothing else from this jury. When I have been in

the courtroom, if you look at them, they're all so attentive. Even during some of the deadly boring parts of this trial, they were so attentive, clearly conscious of the historic nature of what they're undertaking now that they are in deliberations.

And they specifically asked for specific portions of testimony from the beginning of this alleged conspiracy, and that suggests that they are taking a linear or a chronological approach to this. Again, it speaks to how methodical they appear to be right now.

Now, they also asked for portions of the instructions that they had just heard earlier yesterday morning. I was a little surprised by that, because I thought, you just heard these instructions a few hours ago. But when they were read back by the judge this morning, it was clear that these are actually confusing.

Several of them, like the -- talking about hearsay, it took me back to law school. This is incredibly complex, and it really does make things harder, but they don't have a physical copy of this. It's like trying to play a board game with people for the first time, no one has a copy of the rules.

You know, at some point, people are going to get into an argument about what the rules are, so not terribly surprising that they had to have portions of the instructions read back, probably not the last time they will likely ask for some additional clarification those instructions.

But if you look at one of the instructions that was read back, it's a metaphor about rain. The metaphor is that you go to sleep at night, you don't see any rain, but when you wake up, the sidewalk is wet, people are wearing raincoats and carrying umbrellas.

And they explain to the jury that, under those circumstances, it may be reasonable to infer or conclude that it rained during the night. So they're saying, in other words, the facts of it having rained while you were asleep, it's an inference that might be drawn from the proven facts of the presence of water on the street and the sidewalk and people in raincoats and carrying umbrellas.

It's a metaphor, and this is one of their instructions. I mean, imagine how difficult it is to go back to a room with 12 different people, all the different lived experiences, and you have to apply -- one of the things you have to apply is this metaphor to 34 different counts.

It speaks to how challenging this process can be. The jury system is amazing. It's carried out every day in America thousands of times, but this is a difficult thing to do, especially when these are the kinds of instructions that you have.

Intelligent minds can likely disagree about inferences, about the facts, about the instructions that they have received. So this could be a while before we get a verdict from this jury, but one thing I do predict is that we will likely hear from them again today. I expect that they're going to have more questions.

They have heard a lot over the past seven weeks, and I expect they're going to want to hear some other things read back to them, because, again, they have some evidence on their laptop, but they don't have access to transcripts, of witness testimony.

[13:05:00]

And, as we know, a lot of this case really depends on what they heard from witnesses on the stand.

SANCHEZ: We will be eagerly awaiting any sign from the jury as to how deliberations are going.

Paula Reid, thank you so much.

We want to go now to CNN's Kara Scannell. She's been in the courthouse all morning.

Kara, what is it like to be inside that room?

KARA SCANNELL, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Well, Boris, the last two hours has been relatively silent. The jury's behind closed doors deliberating. Donald Trump and his team are in their room. Prosecutors are in their room.

And so it's just the media that's sitting in the courtroom waiting for the buzzer to go off to see what the next development in this trial will be. But they have been working behind closed doors for two hours. One of the new things that they asked the judge for today were headphones, an indication that they wanted to plug into the laptop and listen to some of the evidence.

We have heard actually a lot of evidence that has been audio or video. And that includes Donald Trump's campaign speeches, Michael Cohen's podcasts, and then recorded phone conversations between Michael Cohen and Keith Davidson -- that was Stormy Daniels' attorney -- and then the recorded phone -- excuse me -- the recorded in-person conversation between Michael Cohen and Donald Trump.

We don't know which one of these or how many of them they're going to be listening to, but it was something that they asked for. The judge offered them speakers or headphones, speakers so that multiple individuals could listen at once. And the jury foreman said they would take both of those options.

So that was the last thing we heard from them before they went back behind those closed doors to continue their deliberations. We're at a lunch break right now. They can deliberate if they want to, but they don't need to. And they all have to be together in order to deliberate.

So this is still kind of a moving target. But we will not hear any notes or any developments in this next hour, because we are at a lunch break. So, the next thing that we will do when we get back inside at 2:00 is then wait to see if there's additional notes today or if there aren't. It remains to be seen.

Today, in the courtroom it was just a smaller group accompanying former President Donald Trump. His son Eric Trump was with him, as well as one of his friends, Steve Witkoff, a real estate executive. And I saw Trump just before he was walking out of the courtroom to go into their room where they are waiting this out.

He flashed a thumbs up to Witkoff, who walked out with him, so a smaller entourage today for the former president as he's waiting in the courthouse to see what the next steps in these deliberations will bring -- Boris, Brianna.

SANCHEZ: Yes, waiting, as we all are.

Kara Scannell outside the courthouse in Manhattan, thank you so much -- Brianna.

KEILAR: Let's dig into this a little more now with our senior legal analyst, Elie Honig.

Elie, take us through what the jury, after having been reread these jury instructions, is probably looking at.

ELIE HONIG, CNN SENIOR LEGAL ANALYST: Yes, Brianna.

So they got some more information today about the weeds of the actual facts, but they also asked the judge for a little more information about the charges that they ultimately will be delivering a verdict on. Let's walk through those charges, because they're more complicated here than in the normal case.

Now, step one, the base charge is falsifying business records, which is basically what it sounds like. They took these payments, which were really meant to reimburse Stormy Daniels as hush money, and they tried to call them, label them as legal fees. That's the prosecution's theory.

But then part two that the prosecution has to prove is they did that in order to commit or further another crime. The prosecution's theory is that that another crime is a violation of New York state campaign law. And that law says that you cannot try to influence an election by unlawful means.

Now, this is the part where it gets really complicated. Prosecutors have given the jury a menu of three possible -- quote -- "unlawful means," one of them, federal campaign laws. Another one is falsification of still other business records. And the last one is tax fraud.

But, realistically, the prosecution spent next to no time on these two theories. It's really, let's be realistic here, about federal campaign finance laws. And just to remind people of the core transactions here that form the basis of the charges, about a week before the 2016 election, Michael Cohen paid Stormy Daniels $130,000 in hush money.

He essentially paid out of his own pocket. He took a loan off of his own mortgage, paid her. And then, over the year that followed, Donald Trump and the Trump Organization, they reimbursed Michael Cohen a total of $420,000. And, again, the theory is, this here was really a campaign contribution designed to silence Stormy Daniels.

And, this here, they tried to make it look like legal fees or retainers. That's the falsification with an intent to influence the election.

So, a couple of things. The jury is back there now. The six alternates, they have been split off. They're still technically on duty, but they're not in the deliberation room. These 12 people are in the room by themselves, no judge.

The judge instructed them, but he's not in there with them, no court reporter, no nothing. They have to reach unanimity to render a verdict. It has to be 12-0 guilty or 12-0 not guilty. Anything else will be a hung jury.

KEILAR: They do have some options, though, because we're talking about so many counts of falsifying records. Take us through this.

HONIG: This is such an important point.

There are 34 counts in this indictment, one count for each of 11 different invoices, 12 different vouchers, 11 different checks. They really are going to -- we say a verdict. When is the verdict? It's really 34 different verdicts.

[13:10:10]

There are ways the jury can split this. For example -- I will give you two examples. One, it might be that the jury says the nine checks that Donald Trump himself signed, his signatures on there, they might find the evidence is strong whereas to those and find him guilty on those nine and not guilty on the other 25 counts.

Another possibility, the invoices. The invoices actually say the word retainer, like legal retainer on them, but the checks don't actually say that word. So it could be that the jury says, well, that's false. It says retainer, so guilty on these 11, but the others don't, so not guilty on the others.

So, there's a lot of permutations. And juries do like to compromise if they get stuck, if they can.

KEILAR: So they have been on occasion sounding the buzzer...

HONIG: Yes.

KEILAR: ... which is sort of making me think of "Downton Abbey," but nonetheless...

HONIG: It's very Pavlovian.

KEILAR: It's -- it really is. Jingle the bell. They...

HONIG: They sound the buzzer, we react.

KEILAR: Then a note comes.

HONIG: Yes.

KEILAR: We do. We certainly do, in a different way than Pavlov's dogs.

But, nonetheless, tell us about the notes so far and also what could come.

HONIG: So, there are basically a few categories of notes.

They can ask for legal instructions. And guess what? This morning, they got almost half of the entire legal instruction read back to them. That happens all the time. Jurors will say, can you give us the part about reasonable doubt again? Can you give us the part about witness credibility?

So the judge spent about 45 minutes this morning giving them -- repeating the legal instructions. You can see the jury ask for specific evidence or testimony. Now, here, they're not going to ask for evidence, because they have it. That's the laptop that they have, but they certainly can and have asked for testimony.

This morning, they wanted more testimony relating to David Pecker and Michael Cohen. We could see more notes along that. Miscellaneous notes, Kara was just talking about, I find this interesting. They wanted headphones and speakers.

I mean, look, it tells me they're listening to the tapes. There's a handful of tapes in this case, so you can deduce that much. And then, finally, they will presumably at some point tell us, we have a verdict.

And if they do that, the judge's instructions to them are, send me a note saying we have a verdict, but don't tell me what it is. They like the whole drama of it. If there's a verdict, everyone will rush into place. We will rush into place, and then it will be formally read.

But another -- the other thing I just want to highlight, we're not at this point, we have not seen this, but, sometimes, juries in these miscellaneous categories will send a note -- I have had this happen to me -- it's not great, as a prosecutor -- saying, we're stuck. What do we do? We can't get to unanimity.

At that point, the judge will give them what we call an Allen charge, an extra charge basically saying, if humanly possible, you need to get back there and try to reach a unanimous verdict. So we have already started to see some of these come through.

We don't know how often they could come through. We could get four more today. We could get no more today. We got to stay flexible.

KEILAR: All right, we certainly will.

(LAUGHTER)

KEILAR: Here we are.

Elie, thank you so much for taking us through all of that.

HONIG: Thanks, Bri.

KEILAR: Boris?

SANCHEZ: Let's discuss further with jury consultant Alan Tuerkheimer.

Alan, thank you so much for being with us.

How do you read the jury's requests so far? Does it tell you anything about where they might be in the deliberations?

ALAN TUERKHEIMER, JURY CONSULTANT: There's so much information that they have. I can't tell you specifically what they're trying to do or what they're piecing together or if there's a split in the deliberation.

But there's just -- it's information overload, a trial like this of this magnitude with all these witnesses. And then you get this ambiguous and complex law that each side is trying to get the jurors to have different interpretations of.

So it is a lot. And I think one of the instructions that struck me was, you're allowed to take notes, but then, when you bring them back in the deliberation, you're not allowed to rely on somebody else's notes. So, when that happens, they were said that you have to attach significance to the actual testimony or the evidence.

So that might be why. Some of the jurors might be thinking about their notes, but then a juror who maybe didn't take those notes is saying, well, I had a different recollection. And maybe that's why they're asking for more information, for more testimony.

But there's just so much out there. It's so much out there for one person. And then you think about it. You have to get 12 people to agree on it. And it's hard to get 12 people to agree on anything. When they're ordering lunch, if they're asked, what do you guys want for lunch, do you think 12 people are going to say right away, oh, let's have sub sandwiches or whatever it is?

It's a difficult task, indeed.

SANCHEZ: Yes, no question about that.

Is that also typically why a jury might ask for parts of the instructions to be reread? Could it be that they either remembered instructions differently or that they interpreted them in different ways?

TUERKHEIMER: Sure. You could have a juror say that, when the judge read the instruction on making inferences or circumstantial evidence, I thought he meant XYZ, and another juror meant, no, I think it's -- it's more of taking a leap where there's no direct evidence.

And if there's any kind of dispute or controversy or even disagreement in the jury -- it can be even mild or low-key -- they might think, OK, well, we're not sure. We have to get it right. Let's ask a judge. And it seems like that's what they're doing.

SANCHEZ: Alan, I want to get your thoughts on this metaphor that Judge Merchan used about rain. Essentially, he was telling the jury that they could use common sense or infer certain things based on evidence.

The rain metaphor is essentially that you don't necessarily have to see it raining to know that it did. Like, if you take a nap, you wake up and there's water on the ground outside, there's -- there's precipitation all over the place on your window perhaps, you can kind of logically deduct that it rained.

[13:15:15]

What do you make of that in the context of this case?

TUERKHEIMER: Right. I'm from Wisconsin, so it's snow where I come from.

But they're just trying to piece it together. And they're assessing something. And some jurors might be thinking, well, we don't have a smoking gun. Maybe that came up. That's talked about a lot in deliberations or some kind of real direct evidence.

But it's the commonsense aspect that you just referenced, that, if some jurors have a really strong feeling based on evidence, and they think that they can get to this point, that they can connect the dots, they want to know if that will fit within the definition of circumstantial evidence.

It's not direct evidence, but circumstantial evidence, as judges often say, can be just as powerful and persuasive as direct evidence.

SANCHEZ: So would you say that benefits the prosecution, then?

TUERKHEIMER: I'm not sure.

Sometimes, you have jurors playing devil's advocate. And they might say, well, let's just take everything in light most favorable to the prosecution. Let's see if we can get there. And then maybe they can't. So it's hard to know which side that really benefits.

What -- but -- it tells me is that they are really taking this seriously, and if they have any questions that come up, they're not hesitant to...

SANCHEZ: Alan Tuerkheimer, you got cut off right at the last second, but we got the point. And we appreciate your perspective. Thanks for being with us.

So, we're staying on top of all the details coming out of the courthouse.

Plus: lights, camera and not that much action. Why some Hollywood stars are worried about playing a key role in the upcoming election.

KEILAR: And a new study finds a potential link between tattoos and a type of cancer. But there is pushback, with some experts saying, not so fast. So we will explain this.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[13:21:20]

KEILAR: The Biden campaign is beginning to showcase its A-list celebrity endorsements, but CNN has new reporting that many in Hollywood are hesitating before jumping into this year's polarized presidential race.

SANCHEZ: Yes, some believe the risk is just too high, with such a politically charged atmosphere in the United States and abroad as well.

CNN entertainment correspondent Elizabeth Wagmeister joins us now with more.

Elizabeth, the war in Gaza playing a key role in some of the apprehension by these Hollywood stars.

ELIZABETH WAGMEISTER, CNN ENTERTAINMENT CORRESPONDENT: Absolutely, Boris.

So, as you both said, there have been absolute A-listers who have already come out to support Biden. Of course, this week outside of the courthouse, we saw Robert De Niro. There's also been a huge fund- raising event announced with Julia Roberts and George Clooney.

So that's pretty much as A-list as you can get. But in this polarized, politicized world, particularly with how controversial the war in the Middle East has gotten, I hear from a number of celebrity publicists, agents, Hollywood strategists that celebrities are very wary to speak out.

I worked on this reporting with our colleague Priscilla Alvarez, and we spoke to a dozen people who are working with celebrities and working with the Biden campaign. And they all say that there is absolutely hesitation out there, which is different than in years past.

One celebrity publicist tells me -- quote -- "It's a different world than it was 10 years ago. You can't make anyone happy. You can't win."

Another publicist tells me: "It'll be the usual suspects, but, four years ago, who were you if you weren't speaking out?"

The war has become so polarizing that it's gotten to the point that there's just no winning, particularly in this social media world. Take Mariah Carey, for example. Back in December, around the holidays -- she's the queen of Christmas, right? And she went to the Oval Office to spread some holiday cheer. It was an innocuous post. She said nothing about Israel or Gaza, and yet her comments were flooded with people accusing her of genocide just for standing next to the president.

So that is the point where we have gotten for celebrities. And a lot of them just say, it's not worth the risk. Now, speaking of the war, Gen Z is a big concern this year with getting out to the polls. We saw the campus protests last month. And the war has really become a huge issue for Gen Z.

And the campaign is hoping that a lot of Gen Z celebrities will speak out, but, so far, none have.

KEILAR: All right, Elizabeth Wagmeister, thank you so much for that. We do appreciate it.

Let's talk a little bit more with Leon Panetta. He's the former White House chief of staff during the Clinton administration. He was also formerly CIA director during the Obama administration.

And, sir, you were defense secretary in 2012, when then-President Obama laid out a red line on Syria's use of chemical weapons, a line he later did not enforce when Syria's Bashar al-Assad ended up using them.

Has the president, President Biden, made a similar mistake, laying out a red line that he may not be willing to enforce when it comes to Israel's use of force in Gaza?

LEON PANETTA, FORMER U.S. SECRETARY OF DEFENSE: Well, I always -- I always think it's important that, when the president of the United States establishes any red line -- and you can argue that presidents probably are smart not to establish red lines -- but, if they do, that they have to abide by those red lines, or, otherwise, their credibility is impacted.

So I don't know whether or not the president will or will not stick to his commitment here. But I think that presidents, when they draw a red line, should stick to them.

[13:25:05]

KEILAR: In your view, has Israel crossed the red line?

PANETTA: You know, my impression right now is that hasn't happened, that they're continuing to try to conduct a more limited approach, a more targeted approach in Rafah than they otherwise would.

So I suspect that, at this point, that line still has not been crossed.

KEILAR: The president said this to our Erin Burnett here just a few weeks ago about the U.S. supplying weapons to Israel and also about U.S. support for Israel should it go into Rafah. Let's listen.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JOE BIDEN, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: I made it clear that, if they go into Rafah -- they haven't gone into Rafah yet.

If they go into Rafah, I'm not supplying the weapons that have been used historically to deal with Rafah, to deal with the cities, to deal with that problem. I have made it clear to Bibi and the war cabinet they're not going to get our support if in fact they go into these population centers.

We're not walking away from Israel's security. We're walking away from Israel's ability to wage war in those areas.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

KEILAR: So, he said the U.S. wouldn't supply weapons historically used to deal with Rafah, as he put it.

But CNN has identified the weapon used in that strike that killed 45 people, including women and children, in the tent city in Rafah as an American weapon. Is that a violation of the guidelines that Biden laid out for Netanyahu?

PANETTA: Well, I think it certainly is something that has to be looked into and investigated to determine whether or not that has happened, because, obviously, if -- if they did use that kind of weapon, then it would be a violation of what the president said.

On the other hand, when you're in a war situation, a lot of things happen that may or may not be the reality. And so I really think this is an issue that does need to be investigated, and we have to determine whether or not there's been a breach or not.

KEILAR: When Israel says its preliminary investigation is that they did use a targeted weapon -- we know it was a 250-pound bomb, so this isn't a small bomb we're talking about -- but that that may have actually ignited a munitions store -- and there have also been questions about, I mean, if you're going to hit near or in a tent city, and there are gas cans for cooking and other flammable things, tents are flammable.

I mean, what do you think of that initial assessment by Israel? Does that hold water to you?

PANETTA: Well, you're in the fog of war. And there are going to be a lot of interpretations about what has or has not happened.

Israel will have its conclusions. And, ultimately, the United States has to make its conclusions as well. So I guess the best approach here is that, in order to send a clear signal to Israel, I think the United States has to make clear that they are going to investigate the situation to make sure that Israel is not using weapons that the United States made clear should not be used. KEILAR: White House officials, if we go back to that red line -- and

I agree with you. Maybe they're the kind of things that leaders should have, but maybe they just get into trouble if they talk about them publicly.

White House officials have really expanded on this definition. We heard from John Kirby, a spokesman at the White House, that essentially what he was saying was a red line hasn't been crossed. There have not been large units, columns, formations.

I mean, when -- can you help us understand -- maybe you just have a better insight into this -- where this red line is? This idea of columns and formations, I mean, have we seen that even really in -- in recent history?

PANETTA: Well, again, it's what happens when you draw a red line, is that there are going to be interpretations about whether or not that red line has been crossed or not.

And, right now, I think the administration is taking the approach that that line has not been crossed, because I think -- and it seems to me clear that Israel is, at least at this point, using a more limited approach in Rafah than what they did in the rest of Gaza.

So, as long as they're proceeding on a more targeted approach and trying to go after specific targets, rather than use the kind of weapons that destroy Rafah and harm civilians, I think Israel is at least trying to stay within those limits.

And as long as that's the case, then, obviously, we can continue to proceed with our position. But we're going to have to pay close attention. You know, when you -- when you get into a situation in Rafah where your forces are there and they're confronting

[13:30:00]