Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Newsroom

Impaneled Juror Excused After Saying Aspects of Her Identity Revealed; Rep. Mike Johnson (R-LA) Advances Foreign Aid Plan, Defying Ouster Threats; Blinken Urges Lawmakers to Pass Ukraine Aid BIll. Aired 10-10:30a ET

Aired April 18, 2024 - 10:00   ET

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

ELIE HONIG, CNN SENIOR LEGAL ANALYST: Was going and looking at social media posts of potential jurors, which you're perfectly allowed to do as a lawyer, and they were finding things that they believed jurors were not quite giving the full truth on with respect to their political beliefs and their potential biases.

[10:00:14]

So, we've got an ongoing issue here about the jurors and whether they're giving full information to the court.

SARA SIDNER, CNN ANCHOR: Elie Honig, you make some really good points. This is a really, really big issue now for this jury. We do have two potential jurors, one who's off, one who may be kicked off, who has not shown up to court yet. Thank you so much for joining us at this point.

This is CNN News Central. CNN Newsroom with Jim Acosta starts now with the breaking news.

JIM ACOSTA, CNN ANCHOR: Good morning. You are live in the CNN Newsroom. I'm Jim Acosta in Washington.

We begin with breaking news on Day 3 in the criminal hush money trial of former President Donald Trump. One of the seven impaneled jurors has already been excused after expressing concerns that aspects of her identity had been compromised. We're getting reports. There may be issues with an additional juror.

Let's go straight to CNN Chief Legal Analyst Laura Coates in New York for the latest. Laura, what can you tell us?

LAURA COATES, CNN ANCHOR AND CHIEF LEGAL ANALYST: Look, don't be fooled by the jury weather behind us. It is hot in that courtroom right now. The judge concerned about the anonymity of the jurors.

I'm joined now by Kristen Holmes. Kristen, catch us up. There were seven jurors that had been impaneled already. We needed 11 more to fill out that 12, plus the six alternate jurors. One that's already been seated is saying she can no longer serve.

KRISTEN HOLMES, CNN NATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: And she's been dismissed. So, now we are back down to six. They've brought in the 96 panel to come through and get go through processing once more.

But here's what happened. We know that this juror called the court and essentially said that she was worried about if she could be impartial. She was worried about if she was fit to serve. So, she came in this morning. She talked to the judge and essentially this is what she says. And I want to make sure I get it. She says that she was excused after she told the judge that, quote, aspects of her identity have already been out there in the public.

Yesterday, alone she said she had friends colleagues and family push things to her phone questioning if she was the juror. She went on to say that she felt intimidated and she wasn't sure that she would be able to serve fairly.

But, look, this is an overall problem and we are likely to see this happen again and again with some of these jurors and that is why they are trying now to take out some of those identifying factors.

This is going to be a very high-profile case with a very polarizing figure. It is something that both sides are concerned about being able to actually keep that jury pool. And it's likely when you see Judge Merchan saying, okay, we want around six alternates. We had originally heard just six alternates. There's a chance he's going to want more alternates because as this case goes on we might see more of this.

COATES: And, of course, there's likely to be other jurors who might now see that this person has been dismissed, excused on this very basis, and may now be questioning themselves, have I been compromised? Is my anonymity now in question for some reason? That's a very scary proposition.

We knew that social media posts were already a part of this, and we were able to identify through defense counsel and call them to task. But now you've got this ongoing problem, this tension between what the medias and the interests of the public in trying to cover this case, a historic nature, and also what the jurors are going to be feeling.

And then you also have social media posts on Truth Social. Just last night, Donald Trump posting a quote that he attributed to Jesse Watters from Fox News. He didn't directly say it himself, but this is going to raise questions. What was said?

HOLMES: Well, so he didn't directly say it himself, but all he had was a little line underneath that said, Jesse Watters, Fox News host. He said, they are catching undercover liberal activists lying to the judge in order to get on the Trump jury. There is absolutely no evidence of this, that there's any liberal activists that has been caught.

Now, obviously, as we have seen this process unfold, there have been things that have come out, which is part of the jury selection process of people saying, maybe I can't be fair, or old social media posts. The judge has ruled on that in various cases of these jurors.

Did you post in 2020 something about the election? What news accounts? What have you reposted on social media? The judge, in some cases, has dismissed these jurors. In other cases, he said, I don't really think that this is going to impact their ability to be impartial. That is all part of the process.

But, again, here you have Donald Trump muddying the waters. He has tried time and time again to make this case seem as though it is political, that it is all about election interference. And this is just another way to do this, by essentially telling his millions of followers that the jury pool, without even having a full-seated jury, is already biased against him.

COATES: And, of course, he's saying he'll let you know after the trial whether it was fair. And, again, having a fair trial does not mean that an acquittal is the only resultant outcome.

And then you've got this issue, of course, next Tuesday we're going to hear a hearing on the gag order. It has not been raised as a get in the courtroom as you understand today by the judge about whether this is a violation.

[10:05:00]

You've recently asked President Trump -- former President Trump, about this very notion. He does not think that he's been violating the gag order at all.

HOLMES: Absolutely. So after they had brought this to the judge said, we want a hearing on this. We think he's violated the gag order.

COATES: Not from this post, not from the prior.

HOLMES: Not from this but from the prior post where he was posting about Michael Cohen and Stormy Daniels, reposting articles that were insulting them. I asked Donald Trump when I saw him on Friday whether or not he felt he had violated the gag order. He said, no, that there shouldn't be a gag order at all.

Part of his argument continues to be, well, if they are saying things about me, why can't I say things about them? So, it doesn't seem like he's going to stop anytime soon.

I will also tell you though, what's interesting to me about all of this involving the gag order is that we know from his last trial, his civil fraud trial, that when he violated that gag order and was fined, he started working with his attorneys essentially on how to get all the way up to the line without crossing it. Even some of the social media posts were being vetted by his attorneys.

Now, whether or not they looked over this, I do not know. I mean, sent pretty late at night. So, unclear whether or not he had any approval for this, but they were trying to figure out ways for him to get all the way there.

I mean, remember Donald Trump doesn't want to spend any money, right? And that's all about a fine. So, he doesn't want to spend the thousands of dollars he might get fined on this. So, that's what they were trying to do. But, again, the judge is going to decide whether or not he actually crossed that line.

COATES: Jim, this is such an important turn of events. This morning, we all woke up believing that this trial was set to perhaps even have opening statements as early as it's coming Monday, with seven jurors impaneled and only 11 left to go, including alternates. And now this morning, a turn of events where at least one juror has now been excused who'd already been impaneled, and we're still waiting for others to appear, and, of course, the overall voir dire process to continue for still 96 others who surely know about the consequences of today.

ACOSTA: Yes, the road to opening arguments has certainly hit a speed bump. All right, Laura Coates, thank you very much.

Joining me for all of this is CNN Legal Analysts and Criminal Defense Attorney Joey Jackson. Hey, Joey, what do you think about this news about this juror? What does this tell us about this selection process? It might be a little bumpier than we thought.

JOEY JACKSON, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: Yes, Jim, good morning to you. Look, trials are about expect the unexpected. I think as we continue to move forward, not being negative, just being reasonable, you're going to hit speed bumps, you're going to hit issues. That's part of the process, right, just like we in everyday life hit speed bumps.

And so the fact that there's a juror who would express concern is problematic, that juror being excused. Now you have six.

We'll see what develops today with respect to the jury that's selected, with regard to those who say they cannot serve, and we know the judge has been very overinclusive, saying, listen, if you self- identify as being biased, I'm going to just remove you.

But then, of course, we also know, Jim, that they're down to, that is the parties, the prosecution and the defense for peremptory challenges. What does that mean in English? It means that they can only either party strike four more people.

So, if you go through the panel and you don't have the ability to strike people for cause and people don't identify as being biased, you're going to have a jury and it may very well be running on the very same timeframe as it was running before.

So, yes, a hiccup to be clear, something that is not ideal, but you have to protect the safety, security of the jury. That's what the judge is doing. That's what the juror is doing. And I think the process will move forward from here.

ACOSTA: Yes. I've covered some trials in my day, Joey. Stuff happens. I mean, that certainly is the case. But how often does something like this happen?

JACKSON: You know, it does happen. And I think it's more frequent than infrequent. You have jurors that express a variety of concerns, right? In this case, unlike any other case, of course, so it's unparalleled. But just in a normal course of a case, you'll have a jury express some concern. Something will come up with the juror's family. Something will go amiss at work. Someone will get ill.

And that leads to the question, Jim, of alternates. And that's why you have alternate jurors, right? Not that we have a jury pool yet, of course. But that's why the judge wants at least six so that if something comes up, whether it's an identity breach, whether it's some other intimidation concern, whether it's some unexpected event that happens in a juror's life, you don't have to redo the trial. You can just substitute an alternate such that the matter can move forward, Mr. Trump can get a fair trial, and the ultimate jury can reach a determination beyond a reasonable doubt.

ACOSTA: Yes. Joey, if you were listening in to Laura Coates and Kristen Holmes a few moments ago, what do you make of this Truth Social post that Trump put out there, quoting Fox News commentator about jurors trying to sneak onto the jury and so on, disguising their political beliefs? And there's no evidence of that. It's just something that they're saying. But does that potentially violate the judge's orders in this case?

JACKSON: Yes. So, yes, I was listening to the excellent coverage of both Laura and Kristen. And the reality is that it does violate it. Why? So, the matter is that you can't hide behind anchors, you can't hide behind what other people are saying, you can't hide behind the notion that it wasn't me, I'm just quoting someone.

[10:10:08]

The judge rendered an order. That order said that you're not to be sending out posts as it relates to either witnesses or jurors or, you know, so follow the order.

And so what is going to be of interest to me is by Tuesday, number one, Jim, how many other times the former president does this, if any, and number two, what, if anything, the judge does? I think we're beyond the stage of admonishing someone saying, don't do it.

I think we have to give an order teeth. And to do that, I think there's one or two things, economics, right, do you find him or do you put him on ice, right, you put him in. You know, yes, it's a former president, but at the same time --

ACOSTA: Jail, is that what you're saying?

JACKSON: Why not? That's exactly what I'm saying, Jim. I mean, look, yes, I get he's a former president. I get their Secret Service. I get this case is like no other. But if you're going to have someone completely flouting the rules of the court, how else are you going to maintain decorum? How else are you going to maintain respect? How else are you going to conduct a trial if you don't have consequences? People need consequences to incentivize good behavior. Otherwise it leads to bad behavior.

And so maybe it's a few hours, maybe it's a half a day. But it would be of interest to me, we're not there yet, the hearing is Tuesday, how many more times does he do this? What are the universe of issues considered on Tuesday with respect to gag order violation and what the judge does to enforce it? I think that's very important.

ACOSTA: All right, Joey Jackson, great to have your insights, as always. Thanks so much.

JACKSON: Thanks, Jim.

ACOSTA: All right. Coming up, House Speaker Mike Johnson is risking his political future to pass a foreign aid package. He says, quote, let the chips fall where they may. We'll talk about that next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[10:15:00]

ACOSTA: With his job on the line and his conference in open conflict, House Speaker Mike Johnson now says passing aid to Ukraine is worth the political risk. Here's what he told CNN's Jake Tapper.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JAKE TAPPER, CNN ANCHOR: And Ukraine is desperate for aid.

REP. MIKE JOHNSON (R-LA): Yes, they are. Well, it takes a long time to socialize a bill consensus when you have the smallest majority in the U.S. history.

But when you do the right thing, you let the chips fall where they may. I mean, that's my life philosophy and that's how I govern every single day. We try to get the best possible outcome for the American people.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

ACOSTA: Johnson plans to bring three separate aid bills to the House floor for a vote on Saturday, and then send them as a single package to the Senate. That includes a $61 billion aid bill to Ukraine and that has hardline conservatives fuming accusing the speaker of surrendering to Democrats.

CNN Chief Congressional Correspondent Manu Raju joins us now from Capitol Hill. Manu, take us inside the speaker's thinking on all this.

MANU RAJU, CNN CHIEF CONGRESSIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Yes. Look, he's made the decision here that the right flank of his conference would have been demanding a whole host of issues and including moving forward on a border security plan was simply they didn't have the votes to do that within his conference. And he said that instead, I'm going to try to move forward with a plan with the support of Democrats.

And what they decided to do here is that even though the speaker had insisted that Ukraine aid would be tied to border security provisions, he said there simply weren't the votes to do that.

So, he's moving border security on a separate track and now moving ahead with this major foreign aid package, which will all be tied together ultimately and have the support of Democrats, which is why he's getting a lot of pushback from the far right of this conference, members who plan to vote against it as the speaker plans to rely on Democrats to get across the finish line.

People like Congresswoman Lauren Boebert, who indicated to me that she is lacking confidence in the speaker, even though she does not support the idea of hosting him from the speakership, she made clear of her displeasure. Listen.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

RAJU: Do you have confidence in the speaker?

REP. LAUREN BOEBERT (R-CO): No, I don't have confidence in the speaker, unfortunately. You know, we have been in multiple meetings, multiple hours of meetings with him. And, you know, it's one thing to say, I like this idea, I wish I could, but he is the speaker of the House, and he has that authority to move forward with a package that actually works for America.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

RAJU: Meantime, there are at least two other Republicans who are now supporting the motion to oust Mike Johnson from the speakerships. Several other Republicans are indicating an openness to this as well, showing the conflict within the GOP.

But there is significant pushback among Johnson supporters and Ukraine supporters within the House Republican Conference, including Congressman Dan Crenshaw of Texas.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REP. DAN CRENSHAW (R-TX): I guess their reasoning is they want Russia to win so badly that they want to oust the speaker over it. I mean, it's a strange position to take. And I think they want to be in the minority, too. I think that's an obvious reality.

I'm still trying to process all the (BLEEP).

(END VIDEO CLIP)

RAJU: Now, the question is, if it does come to a vote to oust Mike Johnson, which, of course, will be a historic vote, it happens once other time in American history that happened to Kevin McCarthy in the fall, Mike Johnson would need Democrats to save him.

Right now, behind closed doors, Democrats are meeting about all of their floor strategy to mount this bill, and I'm told that the number two Democrat, Katherine Clark, just told her members to essentially keep their powder dry about whether to save Johnson's speakership because they believe it will help their leverage in negotiations as Johnson finalizes his floor strategy on this critical aid package.

So, there is a lot of talk and a lot of negotiations at this critical moment as they try to get this package over the finish line by Saturday night and Johnson tries to hang onto his job.

[10:20:06]

Jim?

ACOSTA: All right. Manu Raju, you up on Capitol Hill for us, thank you so much.

Let's discuss more now with Republican Congressman Warren Davidson of Ohio. He serves on the House Foreign Affairs Committee and is a member of the House Freedom Caucus. Congressman, thank you very much for being here.

First, let's just get your reaction to what the speaker is doing with this foreign aid package, splitting it up into different bills. Are you on board with that? What do you think?

REP. WARREN DAVIDSON (R-OH): Look, I love the idea of single-subject bills subject to amendment. The idea that we get a granular vote on Ukraine, a granular vote on Israel, and a granular vote on the Pacific package is important, and especially if they're subject to relevant germane amendments. But when you put them together at the end, it's essentially the Senate bill that we already said we're against.

And let me just read you. This is a tweet that Mike Johnson, as speaker of the House, put out just in January. He said, my position is clear. Any bill that does not solve the problem and secure the border is not acceptable to the House.

So, what's missing is a border security bill. They've got a fourth bill and even a fifth bill that's supposedly defending America or securing the border, but it's not going to be part of what is known as a MERV (ph) that merges these bills together and forces the Senate to take action. They didn't accidentally do these things to our border. They did them. They campaigned on them. They delivered them. They've had the same disastrous results that we told them they would. And the reality is the American people want to defend America first.

ACOSTA: So, Congressman, is that a no on the Ukraine aid bill? Is that what you're saying?

DAVIDSON: I'll definitely be voting no on that bill. I can't imagine an amendment that would make it acceptable. They have asked what it would take to make it acceptable, but it seems like a vacuous statement like as much as it takes, as long as it takes is what's going to carry the day. And by that, I think they imply as much as it takes, as long as it takes to get Russia out of Ukraine.

And what they're not saying is that Ukraine, no matter how much money we give them, no matter how many weapons we ship them, does not have the manpower or combat skill to extract Russia from Ukraine.

Now, they've been heroic and inspiring in holding this to a draw, but instead of being able to negotiate a peace, which they started to do, the Biden administration stopped them from doing that, and it said we're going to do as much as it takes as long as it takes. What's happening in the meantime is you've got hundreds of thousands of casualties on both sides, and you don't have a path that is going to extract Russia from Ukraine without outside ground combat power, without outside naval power, sea power, without outside air power.

ACOSTA: So, Congressman, is (INAUDIBLE)? I don't have a whole lot of time. I want to give you as much time as possible, but I do want to jump in. So, you're saying because the Ukrainians don't have any hope of winning in all of this, that US aid should just be cut off?

DAVIDSON: No, we should help support an achievable mission.

ACOSTA: (INAUDIBLE), the Ukrainians are in even worse shape.

DAVIDSON: Well, they are in worse shape. But what they're not saying is, by continuing to do this, without any kind of path to resolution, that the United States supports. Look, I understand is Ukraine saying, look, I don't want any Russians in my country. That's fine. But America's interest is that this war doesn't spread, and the reality is, funding this with the current mission is a plan to make the war spread.

ACOSTA: Let me ask you this. Yesterday, there was a hearing up on Capitol Hill and there was a bit of a back and forth between Congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Greene and Congressman Moskowitz of Florida. Let's listen to that, talk on the other side.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REP. MARJORIE TAYLOR GREENE (R-GA): There's frequent pictures all over, anybody can find them of Nazis. Here they are. This looks like something you'd see out of Hitler's Germany from Ukraine.

REP. JARED MOSKOWITZ (D-FL): Stop bringing up Nazis in Hitler. The only people who know about Nazis in Hitler are the 10 million people and their families who lost their loved ones, generations of people who were wiped out. It is enough of this disgusting behavior using Nazis as propaganda.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

ACOSTA: Congressman, do you agree with what Marjorie Taylor Greene was saying there? It sounds like she's spreading Russian propaganda.

DAVIDSON: Look, I don't have to get into every argument I'm invited to, so I'm going to stay out of Moskowitz versus Marjorie Taylor Greene, but what I will tell you is the Azov battalions do have neo- Nazi affiliations. That's why Democratic Congressman John Lewis banned funds from going to them in 2014 and 2015, which was in the House.

ACOSTA: Yes. But, Congressman, the Russians aren't fighting the Nazis in Ukraine. That's not what's going on there. That's not -- you're not saying that, right?

DAVIDSON: I'm not saying that, but I am saying that the Azov battalions are doing that, and they are purging Russian language and Russian speakers from that area.

That doesn't excuse what Putin is doing. I mean, Putin's invasion is unjust. The world rightly condemns it.

[10:25:00]

We've strongly sanctioned Russia in every possible way. Those are sanctions that the administration is actually doing, unlike the sanctions that they should be doing against Iran, and unlike the sanctions they should be doing against the Mexican drug cartels.

ACOSTA: All right. Congressman Davidson, thank you very much for your time this morning.

DAVIDSON: Thank you.

This morning, Secretary of State Tony Blinken sat down with Ukraine's foreign minister to stress the importance of setting more aid to the war-torn country.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

ANTONY BLINKEN, SECRETARY OF STATE: But in this moment, it is urgent that all of the friends and supporters of Ukraine maximize their efforts to provide with Ukraine what it needs to continue to effectively defend itself against this Russian aggression. And in particular for the United States, that means passing the supplemental, the extra budget request the president has made for Ukraine that we now hope will be before the House this weekend.

Putin is allowed to proceed with impunity. We know he won't stop at Ukraine and we can safely predict that his aggression will continue. Other would-be aggressors around the world will take note and unleash their own aggressions, and we will have a world of conflict, not a world of peace and security.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

ACOSTA: Here with us now is Democratic Congressman John Garamendi of California who serves on the House Armed Service Committee. He's a member of the Congressional Progressive Caucus. Congressman, thank you very much for joining us.

Do you want to respond to what the congressman from Ohio was just saying there a few moments ago?

REP. JOHN GARAMENDI (D-CA): As best I can, but I basically, the power in the House of Representatives is with the Democrats. Everything that needs to be done, Ukraine aid, humanitarian support, Taiwan, all of that will be done by the Democrats, as it has been done vote after vote here. The Republicans simply cannot manage themselves, let alone the fundamental issues.

We will pass, hopefully very, very soon, today, maybe Saturday, assistance for Ukraine, and it will be done with a majority of the votes being Democratic votes, similarly the aid for humanitarian, Israel, as well as Taiwan, the Indo-Pacific, all of that.

Republicans are in disarray. They cannot get the job done themselves. As to Speaker Johnson, his future has really depended upon the Democrats also.

ACOSTA: And I do want to get to that in just a moment. But what do you -- I guess Congressman Davidson was just saying a few moments ago that he is opposed to the Ukraine portion of all of this and he's opposed to sending more aid to Ukraine. He thinks the Ukrainians don't have the ability to fight the Russians and win. What's your response to that?

GARAMENDI: Well, apparently he's joined up with Moscow Marjorie. The Putin caucus within the Republican conference is ever growing. I was surprised to hear him basically giving the Putin line. That's the Putin propaganda that has found its way into the House of Representatives.

It's astounding. It is absolutely astounding that any member of the House of Representatives and the Senate would be parroting the Russian propaganda. But that's exactly what we're seeing day after day, and now it seems to have reached a much higher pitch.

ACOSTA: And what about our Manu Raju was just saying a few moments ago that I guess leaders in your caucus are saying keep your powder dry a little bit when it comes to throwing a life raft to House Speaker Mike Johnson if it comes down to it? Where do you stand on this? If Speaker Johnson can get Ukraine aid across the finish line, do some Democrats like yourself perhaps want to reciprocate and say, okay, we'll help you hang on to your job? Where do you fall on all of this?

GARAMENDI: Well, you better know what the next step is. If Speaker Johnson's future comes down to the Democrats, then we'll want to know who replaces him and how would he manage the House of Representatives for the remaining ten days of his term, whatever that might be.

No, we're absolutely not going to give away the power that we are now exercising in making sure that there is humanitarian aid, that there's aid for Ukraine and for the Indo-Pacific. All of that is happening because of the power of the Democrats standing together and basically telling Speaker Johnson, your future is dependent upon us.

And we want to see that the proper legislation that deals with the very, very serious problems that confront world peace are properly dealt with.

So, the answer to your question is blowing in the wind. We'll see what happens. We'll see what he actually puts forth in the final version of the rules, which will be voted on very shortly, and then going forward from then. Is he going to manage the House of Representatives in a way that addresses the real fundamental problems that confront the United States domestically, as well as around.