Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Newsroom

Israel Hits Iran, Target Unclear, According to U.S. Official; World Leaders Urge Iran and Israel to Reduce Hostilities; House Voting Now on Bills to Advance Foreign Aid; Fourth Day of Trump's Hush Money Trial Jury Selection. Aired 10:30-11a ET

Aired April 19, 2024 - 10:30   ET

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

[10:30:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

JIM ACOSTA, CNN NEWSROOM ANCHOR: Back now to our top story today. U.S. official says, Israel carried out an overnight military strike inside Iran. Authorities say, three drones were successfully shot down near the city of Isfahan. Iranian state media is downplaying the impact of the strike, saying the situation in the city is normal and that their nuclear program sites are secure.

Secretary of State Tony Blinken said this morning that the U.S. was not involved in any offensive operation in Iran. As of now, the Israeli military said it was unable to comment and Tehran has not identified a source behind this attack. Still, this is another sign of rising tensions between Israel and Iran and further raises the threat of a broader conflict in the Middle East.

Joining me now, Former Defense Secretary under President Obama, Former CIA Director Leon Panetta. Mr. Secretary, what is -- what's your reaction to all of this? I mean, was this a bit of a gamble on the part of Israel might have gone, you know, spectacularly awful way? I mean, it didn't do a whole lot, and both sides are sort of saying, OK, we're moving on now. But I -- it could have ended up, you know, a lot worse.

LEON PANETTA, FORMER DEFENSE SECRETARY AND FORMER CIA DIRECTOR, OBAMA ADMINISTRATION AND FORMER WHITE HOUSE CHIEF OF STAFF, CLINTON ADMINISTRATION: Well, there's no question that the rules of engagement have changed in that part of the world. I mean, we've just had, not only Israel striking an embassy complex in Damascus, but Iran then striking back with 300 missiles into Israel. And now, Israel has struck at a target in Iran.

Having said that, it also appears that Israel did pay attention to a lot of the warnings from the world, not to dramatically escalate the response. This was a pretty targeted effort, aimed at hitting a target in Iran near the nuclear facilities, and sending a message to Iran. They've kept their mouth shut. They haven't claimed any kind of victory here. They're keeping quiet. And at the same time, Iran does not appear willing to respond. So, I think the hope is that perhaps we have achieved some kind of rough balance at this point. And that perhaps deterrence has been reestablished.

ACOSTA: Yes, you know, Mr. Secretary, I hear a lot of that cautious optimism today and I -- I'll second it. I hope everybody's right about this. There is something that is concerning though, is there not, about the fact that this line was sort of crossed militarily between these two countries over the last week. And I think that sets the stage, does it not, for potentially more bad things to happen down the road now that both sides have said, OK, we could do this and no big deal. We move on. That doesn't always work out so well if this continues.

[10:35:00]

PANETTA: Not in that part of the world.

ACOSTA: Yes.

PANETTA: I mean, the reality is that both sides have, in the past, been much more targeted. Israel has used more targeted assassination efforts and going after specific targets. And Iran basically relied on their proxies to respond. That may no longer be the case.

I mean, I know they will try to get back to that. But once you have crossed the line, and you have actually attacked targets in another country, it gets very hard when something else now happens for those advising the leadership in both countries to say, wait a minute. This requires a direct attack as opposed to some kind of reduced proxy attack. So, once that appetite is there, I think it increases the danger. It doesn't reduce it.

ACOSTA: And I guess, you know, one of the questions for the Biden administration or the president for the White House is, let's say, Iran wants to retaliate somewhere down the road or we get into another of this tit for tat rounds where they go back and forth.

Obviously, the world got very lucky last Saturday when that coalition came together, helped the Israelis repel that air assault from Iran. I have to imagine, Mr. Secretary, if the Iranians are more successful next time around, and perhaps they telegraphed it last weekend in a way that it was repelled, but next time around, if it doesn't work out that way, the U.S. could get drawn in. What kind of advice would you give the president, the administration in a scenario like that? Are we jumping too far ahead of ourselves? What do you think?

PANETTA: Well, I think we're probably looking at two paths forward, Jim, at this point. One is that, you know, I do believe that the better path would be to have Israel reinforce that coalition that came together that, in effect, really put together the defense of Israel by 99 percent knocking down those missiles.

It's a great coalition. It's made up of the United States and Great Britain and France, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, UAE. I consider that a great coalition for Israel to be able to work with, not only in dealing with Iran, but in dealing with terrorism generally.

So, if Israel is smart and relies on that coalition, I think there's a way to bring the war to -- in Gaza to an end, to look forward to what happens in the next chapter in Gaza, and hopefully resolve some of these terrible humanitarian issues that still need to be dealt with. That's the hopeful path.

ACOSTA: Yes.

PANETTA: The path of concern is that if anything happens here and in foreign policy in that part of the world, it's -- there is always miscalculations. There are always efforts to try to upset the cart. I mean, nothing has changed in the relationship. It's still antagonistic.

And if something happens, if there is an action that takes place, either by a proxy or by the players themselves, then I think it's Katie bar the door. Because both sides know that they have been successful at hitting targets in the other country. And although Iran has more questions, I -- make no mistake about it, Iran is trying to figure out what they have to do to be able to penetrate Israel and be able to effectively hit those targets.

What Israel did show is that they could penetrate Iran and that Iran could not take defensive action. So, there are a lot of questions that have been raised here as a result of these efforts. And the question is going to be whether the leadership Wants to maintain a period of balance or whether or not they're going to continue to try to hit each other.

ACOSTA: All right. Fascinating questions indeed. All right. Mr. Secretary, thank you so much. Hopefully we'll go into a quieter weekend this week. And I hope it is for you as well. Thanks a lot, Leon Panetta. Thanks so much.

PANETTA: Thank you, Jim.

ACOSTA: Appreciate it. All right. Good to see you.

In the meantime, right now, the House is voting on advancing the foreign aid bills for final passage. Some very important votes about to take place. Please stay tuned for that. We'll take you live to Capitol Hill next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[10:40:00]

ACOSTA: Right now, the House is voting on whether to advance the foreign aid bills for final passage.

Let's go straight to CNN's Manu Raju who joins us now up on Capitol Hill. Manu, if you can explain what's happening on the floor right now, and will Republicans need to rely on Democrats again? What can you tell us? MANU RAJU, CNN ANCHOR, INSIDE POLITICS SUNDAY AND CNN CHIEF CONGRESSIONAL CORRESPONDENT AND ANCHOR: Yes, they -- in fact, this is very unusual what's happening in the House of Representatives. Typically, these procedural votes happen along straight party lines. The majority party votes for it, the minority party votes against it. But the politics have been scrambled here because of the deep Republican divisions over this foreign aid package, that includes aid to Ukraine, to Israel, to Taiwan.

This is the first procedural vote that is necessary to take up that larger vote package. But because of those Republican divisions, we are seeing GOP defections in this vote. Right now, we are seeing there are 18 Republicans who have voted against this. If this were a straight party line vote, that would mean this would fail.

[10:45:00]

But Democrats are going to move across the aisle and carry this over the finish line. Just one Democrat has voted yes so far but we expect many more.

This is all due to the handling of the -- of aid to Ukraine. Republicans had demanded that this be tied to border security. Mike Johnson calculated he simply did not have the votes to tie this to a border security plan. Instead, moving forward with this effort that Democrats do support. But in talking to members on both of the aisle, they are assessing Johnson's leadership on this. Democrats are applauding him even if they say it was a little slower than they would like. And Republicans who have defending him are pushing back against the far right.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

RAJU: How would you characterize the speaker's handling of this situation on the Ukraine aid?

REP. GREGORY MEEKS (D-NY): Slow, should have been done months ago. Should have just put the Senate bill on the floor. It would've gotten 300 votes.

REP. MIKE LAWLER (R-NY): Frankly, this is a moment for moral clarity for everyone. The speaker is doing the right thing at the right time for the right reasons. And the institution as a whole should respect that and they should reflect on that. And if the motion of vacate comes, I think it is incumbent upon everybody to protect the institution.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

RAJU: Now, the big question is, if and when does that motion to vacate come? Of course, that is the ability of any one individual member to call for the vote of the ouster of the sitting speaker. We saw that happen in an unprecedented fashion last fall to Kevin McCarthy.

Now, there are threats on the far right to Mike Johnson's speakership. Two Republicans have come out in support of it. Marjorie Taylor Greene leading that effort. The question is going to be whether or not she goes forward. She can call that vote at any time. It had to be taken within two legislative days. And then what happens then? Will Democrats vote with Republicans to kill that effort? That is the expectation.

But the Democratic leaders are not saying if they will do that, hoping to extract more concessions from Mike Johnson in the process. But that is the drama that is playing out. But the significance of this vote right now, moving forward on this massive aid package as Ukraine says it desperately needs this money right now. Jim.

ACOSTA: Yes, a lot of -- a lot riding on these votes over the next couple of days. Manu Raju on Capitol Hill, tracking it all for us. Thank you, Manu, very much.

Coming up, we're live outside a Manhattan courthouse as potential alternate jurors are being narrowed down for former president Donald Trump's criminal trial. That's next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[10:50:00]

LAURA COATES, CNN SENIOR AND CHIEF LEGAL ANALYST, FORMER FEDERAL PROSECUTOR, AND SIRIUSXM HOST, "THE LAURA COATES SHOW": Welcome back. I'm Laura Coates outside the Manhattan courthouse where jury selection for Donald Trump's historic criminal hush money trial continues. I'm joined by Kristen Holmes.

A really important point here. We've got 12 jurors we know who've already been seated. Now, we're onto the alternates. Now, normally in a court proceeding, you wouldn't want your alternates to know they're alternates because you might think that they may not be as attentive. But here the judge has already announced, look, we know who our seated jurors are. But those alternates are going to have to maybe one day assume a role in deliberations. So, they've got to focus nonetheless. This is really interesting.

KRISTEN HOLMES, CNN U.S. NATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: It is, and it's also interesting to see that some of these people are taking this very seriously, even as alternates. Three of them saying that they thought about it and they could not be impartial. Clearly understanding that the stakes are so high that there is a likelihood that they could be called. And one of the things we've already seen is that two seated jurors then came back and said that they could no longer, or at least one of them said that they could no longer be impartial.

So, they're taking this very seriously, as you can tell, even though the chances are it's less likely that they would sit on the jury than obviously if they were in the box.

COATES: Stranger things have happened. Of course, it's moving very quickly right now in the afternoon. If they're able to already seat this jury in full, they'll probably have this what's called a Sandoval hearing, a way of alerting the defendant, Donald Trump, who they might question him about and what they might question him about --

HOLMES: If he's going to testify.

COATES: If he testifies. He might testify in his defense, he might not. But regardless, he's got a lot of people out there who are our followers who are defending him on social media even in spite of a gag order.

HOLMES: Not even just defending him on social media, but really lashing out just at the judge, at the jurors already. The important thing to note here is that Donald Trump is under a gag order, sure. But his millions of followers, and particularly some very high-profile right wing social media influencers, are not under that gag order.

And remember, we are getting information about these jurors that we are specifically not putting out because we don't want to release any kind of identifying information. However, when it comes to what the actual rules are, other than naming where exactly they work, the judge just said use common sense.

So, we are using our best common sense to make sure the identity is protected, but that does not mean that these right-wing social media influencers who have access to the same information are going to use the same level of, "Common sense," on what they put out, which could be a problem for the jury.

And also, it really does give Donald Trump this extra megaphone without him actually having to put forward. And that's really what we've also seen with him in his actual violations, or at least what the prosecution says is violations of the gag order is him reposting other people's posts about the witnesses, et cetera. So, interesting to see this kind of dynamic play out and how it impacts this case moving forward.

COATES: And that's why the alternates are going to be so important because within one day, not even a 24-hour periods, you had jurors who felt that their enmity had been compromised and therefore did not want to be or could not be impartial. This is why the alternates are so important here.

But also, when you go ahead and think about why the judge is saying use common sense, remember there is this notion of prior restraint. The court can't be in the position of telling you what you can pre- publish if it's a matter of public record.

[10:55:00]

And yet -- and still, we in the media have to have that balance between access to information for the public in a very high interest trial, and also trying to ensure that the process of justice is fair.

HOLMES: Yes.

COATES: It's really important to think about.

You know, there's just so much that's happening right now. Jim, there is a lot going on. I want to go back to you in Washington as we're waiting to see can they finalize this panel of total of verdict of 18 even this morning.

ACOSTA: Yes, so much happened this week. Just during jury selection makes you wonder what's going to happen? What are we in store for next week when things might actually get started with opening arguments on everything else? Laura Coats, great to see you. Great job as always. Thanks so much.

And thank you for joining us this morning. I'm Jim Acosta. Our next hour of "Newsroom with Wolf Blitzer" starts after a short break. Have a great weekend, everybody.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[11:00:00]