Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Newsroom

Deadly Israeli Strikes Continue in Gaza; Interview With Rep. Mike Lawler (R-NY); Trump Juror Excused. Aired 11-11:30a ET

Aired April 18, 2024 - 11:00   ET

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

[11:00:09]

WOLF BLITZER, CNN HOST: And then there were six. Seated juror number two has just been excused from Donald Trump's hush money trial. We will explain why.

Also this hour, House Speaker Mike Johnson is walking the political tightrope right now with a foreign aid bill that has infuriated Republican hard-liners.

And speaking of a House divided, the Kennedy family will join forces today to back President Biden's reelection bid over RFK Jr.'s campaign.

Hello. I'm Wolf Blitzer in Washington, and you're in the CNN NEWSROOM.

Happening now, in New York, Donald Trump is back in the courtroom as jury selection continues in his criminal hush money trial. It's the first ever criminal trial for a former U.S. president. One of the seven seated jurors has already been excused. She had expressed concerns that aspects of her identity had been compromised.

And we're also hearing there may be issues with yet another juror.

Let's go to CNN's chief legal analyst, Laura Coates. She's in New York for us with all the late-breaking developments -- Laura.

LAURA COATES, CNN SENIOR LEGAL ANALYST: Well, it's been quite the exciting day, the third day of jury selection in the historic criminal trial against a former president of the United States.

Initially, there were 96 jurors who were brought into the courtroom today. That was already cut in half by those who said they could not be impartial by a show of hands.

I'm back here with Kristen Holmes. And, also, Kara Scannell joins us from inside the -- this whole area.

Kara, tell me what happened today. There were 96 jurors who were brought in after that juror called in to say she can no longer serve. What's happening?

KARA SCANNELL, CNN CORRESPONDENT: So, they brought in the 96 jurors, this new pool. The judge gives them the instructions about what it is required to be a juror, what the elements that they need to prove, the prosecution needs to prove this beyond a reasonable doubt. And then they ask the question of, is there anyone who feels that they cannot be fair and impartial?

We saw a number of hands go up. Specifically, there were 48 people who said that they couldn't. That was on par with Monday. Monday, we started with 96. About 50 hands went up for that. So, this is a similar situation that we're seeing.

And then another nine said that they couldn't serve for some other reason, like a scheduling reason. So they just started doing the 42 questions in that questionnaire, where the judge is inquiring about people's biography, if they have ever attended a Trump rally or an anti-Trump rally.

And they're going to build out the little profiles for the first 18 jurors in the box. Once they seat 18, meaning they have gone through the questionnaire, and they don't believe any need to be excused, because the judge feels like they're potentially suitable, there's not an apparent issue of someone being unable to be fair and impartial, then they will start the questioning by the attorneys.

And the attorneys, both the prosecution and Trump's lawyers, will have 30 minutes each to ask these questions. And what we learned Monday, part of the strategy is, prosecutors are asking, you know, people can believe someone who's already admitted that they have lied under oath, for instance, or if they can look past someone's job to, like, a tabloid publisher or an adult film actress and evaluate them based on what they have said.

So they're trying to get to the actual issues in the case. And Trump's lawyers, as we saw, were asking a lot of questions around, how do people feel about Donald Trump, trying to unearth if there was like a hidden bias or a subconscious bias against him.

And also, as we learned too, they were looking into people's past social media posts to try to see if there was something in someone's past. And they were successful in getting two jurors excluded yesterday -- Tuesday because they found some problematic posts going back years in their past.

COATES: And yet the judge cautioned the idea that every time you want to ask a juror and isolate a question, you have a separate meeting with them. The judge does not want that to take place.

They want the overall 30-minute voir dire to be used to actually identify any social media posts. But there's also one juror today who was very forthcoming about just how much she knows about the allegations in this case. She's a lawyer.

She's somebody who has read, I think, the Mike (sic) Pomerantz book, who was a -- one of the members of the DA team who was outraged that Alvin Bragg did not initially want to go forward with this case. She's still there?

SCANNELL: Well, they're still going through the questioning. So, at this point, it seems like she's still in the box, but it's not clear yet if the judge has made any rulings on her.

She is a lawyer. She understands whether you could be fair and impartial. And I'm sure they will have a conference afterwards to see if either side, because prosecutors could also have an issue that she knows some facts in this case. It's not as though it's necessarily against Trump that she's read all of this.

We don't know what her view is on what she has read, but it's just someone who does have a lot of information about this case, and they will have to see if she could purely set it aside, or if there's any hesitation that they don't think that she should serve.

[11:05:04]

COATES: This is a very powerful reminder that it can cut both ways.

The Trump camp though, he has been talking about storming in and out of this courtroom today. He is certainly trying to make it known how he feels about having to be present and off the campaign trail.

KRISTEN HOLMES, CNN NATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Yes.

And I think what's really interesting is that we have seen him really engage the jury a little bit more this time, turning around for the first time, eying all the jurors. Just now, when we were talking about that same juror who was being questioned, and with her deep wealth of knowledge on the case, he was looking at her directly.

Now, there's nothing that says that he can't look at these prospective jurors directly, but there is something when it is a former president and to how these jurors would feel and if that does end up coming up, in terms of, they walked in, they were surprised to see it was the former president.

We heard from jurors who were dismissed who said that there was something kind of shocking to them when they saw him up close and personal. So what does it mean when he's turning around and looking at them? Does that make them feel intimidated or does it not?

And, again, it's not necessarily something he's doing. It's just where we are in this case, given who the defendant is.

COATES: And don't forget, there was already a juror today who had been seated, who was one of the seven jurors. We only had 11 -- well, really 11 to go to get to that coveted 18, which includes the 12 and the six, and has already called in to say, listen, I think that my anonymity has been compromised.

The judge is well aware of this might having been an impact on other jurors, including prospective ones as well. What's the era -- the aura in the courtroom right now knowing that there's already been one who said, look, you seated me, I can't do it? SCANNELL: Well, the judge has now added additional parameters of what information can be known about the jurors.

I mean, this juror, just to be clear, said that she felt that aspects of her identity were known and she was being inundated by friends and family asking if she was this juror.

COATES: But we don't know why she felt that way or how they knew that about her, right? It wasn't necessarily one moment?

SCANNELL: No, she didn't -- there was not -- they didn't go into a lot of the details of it.

What it ended up boiling down to is that the judge said that it can no longer be reported who someone's employer is. Now, CNN did not identify her employer. Other news outlets did. She has -- she is an oncology nurse. There are hundreds of oncology nurses in the city, but she felt like she -- her -- more identity -- more aspects of her identity were known that made her feel uncomfortable.

So, the rule going forward is, the judge said that, reporters can't report where someone works, which is appropriate, because that does narrow it down some.

And we are also trying to provide some insight so the public knows who is going to be in judgment of the former president in the first historic case, but not provide too much identity that they could be identified, because we don't know their names. Only the lawyers in the case know the jurors' identities. And that is for a reason.

And we see this in other high-profile cases.

COATES: Mm-hmm.

SCANNELL: And this certainly is one where there is a lot of extra attention and a lot of people really kind of scouring the Internet, it seems, to want to know who is on this jury.

But it is also something that we have seen time and again, whenever there is a high-profile trial where there is a lot of media attention it.

COATES: Yes.

HOLMES: Well, and there is something to be said about the fact that, when you're going into jury duty, your colleagues know that you're not there likely because you're going into jury duty.

Your family knows that you likely have jury duty. So, telling the people around you that you're going to go down to the courthouse, that's why you're not coming to work, and then you're starting to see these details trickle out, it's going to be hard, because, even if you're not publishing where somebody works, any detail, if you're telling people around you, might lead to them suspecting that you're the juror, particularly... Again, we're doing this because it's a public service to get out who the jury is to kind of show, even when you have Donald Trump saying the jury is completely unfair, you know, showing the other side of that, who these people are that believe that they can be fair and unbiased.

But it is difficult...

COATES: Yes.

HOLMES: ... again, in a case like this.

COATES: It is difficult.

And, of course, Wolf, you know that inference might work to try to find out the identity of jurors, but it's not going to cut it for the prosecution. They have to prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt. They can't just rely on inference or somebody hoping to put two and two together.

BLITZER: Good point.

Laura Coates, we will get back to you. Thanks very, very much.

For all of -- for more on all of this, I'm joined now by CNN legal analyst the former federal prosecutor Jennifer Rodgers.

Jennifer, thanks for joining us.

Is it, first of all, common for jurors who have been seated to be reexamined or asked to be excused after they are actually sworn in?

JENNIFER RODGERS, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: No, it's very uncommon.

I mean, sometimes, in the middle of trial, something will come to the attention of the parties that the juror has done that will cause them to be questioned and even sometimes removed. But this is obviously very unusual.

This juror felt that she was identified. That made her concerned that she wasn't anonymous, as the jury is supposed to be. And the real problem here, Wolf, to me is that it's not just her. I mean, the other jurors who are also seated had identifying information published about them.

[11:10:00]

And so I wonder if this is going to be an ongoing problem, where these other jurors between now and when jury selection is complete say, well, hey, wait a minute, people are also contacting me to say, are you the juror?

We're going backwards. We had seven jurors as of first thing this morning. Now we have six and maybe even five, because one of the jurors hadn't showed up and now may be questioned by the DA's office as to whether that juror should sit. So, we're heading in the wrong direction in terms of getting this jury complete.

BLITZER: And all this personal information about these jurors was released during the court proceedings. It wasn't as if the media discovered who these individuals were, what their backgrounds were and reported it.

We in the media were reporting what the court had released, that information, right?

RODGERS: That's right.

It's -- this is something that should have been foreseen. I mean, in the questionnaire, which is going to be answered by each of these jurors in the box in open court to be, as you said, reported on by anyone who is there, asked them what their current employer is and any past employers.

And that piece of information is just too specific. I think that the judge and the parties should have foreseen that this might happen, and they should have already put in place some sort of measure to say, while it's important to the parties to know where someone works perhaps, it's not important to the public and it has the risk of identifying them.

So you're right. This really should have been foreseen by the judge and the parties and should never have happened.

BLITZER: Yes, I totally agree. All right, Jennifer, thank you very much.

Jennifer Rodgers helping us.

Still ahead this hour: Could it be Democrats who save the Republican House speaker's job? I will speak with Republican Congressman Mike Lawler about the critical days ahead up on Capitol Hill.

Plus, with the Passover holiday next week, the FBI director is now warning the Jewish community to be on high alert. The potential threats both at home and abroad -- when we return.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[11:16:35]

BLITZER: Mike Johnson's days as speaker of the House could be numbered, with the Louisiana Republican saying he will risk losing the gavel to pass aid to Ukraine.

Listen.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REP. MIKE JOHNSON (R-LA): I can make a selfish decision and do something that -- that's different, but I'm doing here what I believe to be the right thing.

I think providing lethal aid to Ukraine right now is critically important.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BLITZER: Speaker Johnson plans to bring three separate aid bills to the House floor for a vote on Saturday, including some $61 billion for Ukraine.

And that has hard-line conservative Republicans fuming right now and accusing the speaker of surrendering to the Democrats.

CNN congressional correspondent Lauren Fox is up on Capitol Hill for us.

Lauren, so how are Democrats, first of all, weighing this critically important moment?

LAUREN FOX, CNN CONGRESSIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Yes, Democrats just left a more-than-hour-long caucus discussion, where they were trying to sort this question out for themselves.

It's clear that there are not going to be enough Republicans to advance this legislation. There may not even be enough Republicans in the committee to advance this legislation. So, at this point, it becomes a question of whether or not Democrats are willing to do what is not traditional in the House of Representatives, and that is to help the majority get the rule across the finish line, so they can actually have a fulsome debate on this package.

Now, many Democrats coming out of that meeting said that there was no consensus as to how they were going to proceed. But I will tell you, there are a number of Democrats who are signaling that they want to ensure this Ukraine piece passes and that they are willing to do whatever it takes to ensure that U.S. allies across the world have the money that they need to fight against enemies.

So, I think that that is really weighing on Democrats in this moment. It's really sort of a political question versus -- versus this question about the U.S.' standing around the globe.

Now, there's a complicating factor here, and that is the fact that some Republicans are urging Speaker Mike Johnson to change the threshold for the motion to vacate. That is the ability of one person to oust or at least call for a vote to oust the speaker at any time.

Some Republicans saying that that rule should be changed as part of this package with the supplemental. That becomes a more complicated question, though, as to whether Democrats would help with that. Here's what one of those Democrats, Dan Kildee of Michigan, told me.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REP. DAN KILDEE (D-MI): I mean, it's just another layer, for sure. I mean, I -- first of all, I think the rule as they wrote it for themselves was preposterous.

So I don't disagree that it's a ridiculous rule. Whether or not, in this moment where we have a global security challenge, we ought to be trying to bail them out of their politics is another question. But I'm open to the conversation. It's going to be a leadership decision.

They have created this mess for themselves, though, and it was predictable.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

FOX: And I spoke with Leader Jeffries as he left that meeting with his caucus. He said that no decisions were made, that they are still having a conversation, he is still listening.

So, obviously, Wolf, we are waiting to see what Democrats will do.

BLITZER: Lauren Fox up on Capitol Hill, thank you very much.

Let's discuss what's going on with Congressman Mike Lawler. He's a Republican from New York.

Congressman, thanks so much for joining us.

First of all, will you vote for Speaker Johnson's foreign aid bills, as he announced the details today? And did Speaker Johnson do the right thing here?

[11:20:06]

REP. MIKE LAWLER (R-NY): Yes, I will be supporting the speaker's legislation.

Inclusive of the bill are two bills that I have long advocated for and introduced and passed through the House, the SHIP Act and the Iran- China Energy Sanctions Act. So I'm happy to see that included, so that we can go after the source of Iran's funding of terrorism, the illicit oil trade.

The speaker did the right thing. We are the leader of the free world, and we must act. And by putting this legislation on the floor, the speaker is showing leadership, he's showing resolve and courage, regardless of what the political consequences may be.

And I think this is a moment for the institution as a whole to put politics aside and do right, not just by the American people, but by our allies around the globe. And so, for all of us, my hope would be, number one, we advance this legislation and, number two, that any effort to remove the speaker for doing the right thing is thwarted, because the institution cannot function under that type of threat, where any one member can exert their will or substitute their judgment over the majority of not just the Republican Conference, but of the House.

BLITZER: You know, I'm looking at the summary of all the details of these various aid packages for Ukraine, Israel, Taiwan, as released by the speaker of the House.

And what jumped out at me, that all of the aid for Ukraine, $61 billion or so, he says would be converted into a loan, as opposed to an outright U.S. grant. Is that OK with you?

LAWLER: Yes.

Look, we have to find compromises along the way to build consensus. We live in a constitutional republic. We're never going to get every aspect of what we want. I think President Zelenskyy has made it clear he is fine with a loan. And if this is what builds consensus to get this across the finish line, frankly, that is the least of my concerns.

We need to get the lethal aid to Ukraine, to Israel, to Taiwan in this challenging time. Russia, China and Iran have engaged in an unholy alliance that seeks to undermine and destabilize the free world. And we have a responsibility, as leader of that free world, to bring our allies together, to support them in their time of need.

If we shirk in that responsibility, then we cease to be that leader that nations can count on and rely on, and you will see a new world order in which China, Russia and Iran are the driving force around the globe. And that just cannot be. It's not good for America. It's not good for the world.

And so this is critical to get this across the finish line. And if it requires having language in the bill that makes it a loan, I'm fine with that.

BLITZER: You make important points, Congressman.

How does all this infighting among your fellow Republicans reflect on your party? And are you worried it potentially could cost the GOP some seats and even potentially control of the House of Representatives come November?

LAWLER: Well, the reality is, control of the House of Representatives is based on districts like mine, a district Joe Biden won by 10 points that has 80,000 more Democrats than Republicans.

I am willing to do what is right by our country to represent my district. I respect my colleagues and their perspective on this legislation, which is why they will get an up-or-down vote on it. If they don't want to support Ukraine funding for whatever reason, they can vote no. That is their right.

But they don't have the right to substitute their judgment for that of the majority and that of the speaker, who was elected by the membership. We have a responsibility to govern. The American people put Republicans in charge of the House to serve as a check and balance.

I think the Biden administration has had a disastrous foreign policy, in particular with respect to Iran. And we need to hold them accountable. And that's why I have introduced the SHIP Act and passed it through the House to ensure sanctions are in place.

But we can't get that critical legislation across the finish line if we can't find ways to compromise. And so this legislation that the speaker has put forth brings a compromise bill to the floor in a divided government in which the Senate is controlled by Democrats, the House by Republicans.

And for my colleagues that continually seek to undermine the majority, what they fail to recognize is that the very issues they care about have zero chance of becoming law if they are not willing to work together as a team.

[11:25:05]

The border is critical. I support legislation that would secure our border. The Biden administration has failed to secure our border and, in fact, exacerbated the crisis at our southern border, 10 million migrants crossing since Joe Biden took office.

But the inability of my colleagues to compromise is what is stymying the ability of the speaker to get border security in this negotiation. And so that -- really, to me, they should be looking in the mirror, rather than attacking the speaker or folks like me who are on the front line and delivered this Republican majority.

BLITZER: Republican Congressman Mike Lawler of New York, thanks, as usual, for joining us.

LAWLER: Thank you.

BLITZER: New this morning, Health Ministry officials in Gaza say the death toll there has climbed to nearly 34,000 people, that update coming as CNN learns that 10 members of one family were killed overnight in an Israeli airstrike in Rafah. Half of those victims were children, according to hospital staff.

CNN correspondent Jeremy Diamond is joining us now from Tel Aviv.

Jeremy, you have seen the human toll inside Gaza. Share our latest reporting with our viewers on what's going on.

JEREMY DIAMOND, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Well, amid the kind of bigger- picture geopolitical considerations of the Iran-Israel conflict, the Israeli military's campaign inside of Gaza is very much continuing this week, and to very deadly effect, notably as it relates to children.

Overnight, an airstrike in Rafah killed five children of the same family. And the day before, Wolf, I want to draw your attention to a strike that happened in the Al-Maghazi refugee camp in Gaza, where eight children were killed, many of them playing around a foosball table in that camp.

And I want to warn our viewers that the images they're about to see are very graphic and disturbing.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

DIAMOND (voice-over): A moment frozen in time, the bodies of at least four children splayed around a foosball table, laughter and shrieks of joy silenced in an instance, blood now marking where they stood only minutes earlier.

"Shahed," no way, "Shahed, my beloved," her cousin screams from behind the camera.

Ten-year-old Shahed is one of those children, her bright pink pants unmistakable in the arms of the man carrying her away. With her family's consent, CNN has decided to show Shahed in life and death in order to give a face to this war's deadly impact on children.

At Al-Aqsa Martyrs Hospital, those who can still be saved arrive alongside those who cannot, amid the chaos, Shahed's pink pants dangling as a doctor confirms what is tragically obvious. But Shahed is not alone. She is one of eight children who died on that crowded street in Al-Maghazi. The hospital says they were killed in an Israeli airstrike.

By publication time, the Israeli military said only that the incident is under review. One after another, their small bodies arrive at the hospital's morgue and into the arms of grieving parents.

His eyes swollen and red, the father of 9-year-old Loujain recounts his daughter's last moments playing foosball with her friends.

"This is my eldest daughter," he says. "A drone strike hit them while they were playing. They're all children."

Hours earlier, Yusuf was one of those children, playing alongside Shahed and Loujain, when he was suddenly killed in a war he did not choose, his mother still clinging to her son. Neither does this boy, who cannot believe his brother is dead.

"He is still alive," he cries. "Don't leave him here."

Amid the outpourings of grief, there is Shahed, her blood-stained pink pants once again impossible to miss.

"Dear God, what did they all do?" one man cries. "What did they all do?"

(END VIDEOTAPE)

DIAMOND: And, Wolf, in our reports, we rarely show the faces of the dead, but, in this case, with the family's permission, we felt it was important to highlight the enormous toll that this war has taken on children.

Nearly 14,000 children have been killed in six months of war in Gaza. And it's important to remember, of course, that, beyond the numbers, there are these little faces, their dreams, their lives cut short -- Wolf.

BLITZER: All right, Jeremy in Tel Aviv, thanks for that report.