Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Newsroom

CNN INTERNATIONAL: Biden: Protests Must Be Peaceful, Within The Rule Of Law; Police Dismantle UCLA Encampment, Detain Protesters; Now: Sixth Day Of Testimony In Trump Hush Money Trial; IDF Responds To Questions About Strike That Killed 10 Children. Aired 3-4p ET

Aired May 02, 2024 - 15:00   ET

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

[15:00:38]

ERICA HILL, CNN HOST: It is 8:00 p.m. in London, 10:00 p.m. in Tel Aviv, 12:00 p.m. in Los Angeles and 3:00 p.m. here in New York, just outside Donald Trump's criminal hush money trial. I'm Erica Hill.

PAULA NEWTON, CNN HOST: And I'm Paula Newton. Thanks so much for joining us today on CNN NEWSROOM.

And we want to get straight to the developing news.

Dissent, not disorder, that is President Biden's message as he publicly addressed protesters for the first time amid those chaotic scenes unfolding on college campuses right across the country. Listen.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JOE BIDEN, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: Dissent is essential to democracy. But dissent must never lead to disorder or to denying the rights of others, so students can finish the semester and their college education. There should be no place in any campus, no place in America for antisemitism, or threats of violence against Jewish students. There is no place for hate speech or violence of any kind, whether it's antisemitism, Islamophobia or discrimination against Arab Americans or Palestinian Americans.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

NEWTON: The president's message comes just hours after police entered and dismantled UCLA's encampment in California. More than 100 protesters were arrested as police fired what appeared to be rubber bullets into the crowd. Arrests continue right across the country, meantime as protesters refuse to leave their encampments.

I want to bring in our Camila Bernal now at UCLA in California.

Camila, you know, another night of dramatic scenes. I know you were in the thick of it. I was watching you at 3:00 a.m. local time. I mean, what is happening now? And are there concerns that protesters will return, because really encompassing all of this now were dueling accusations right? On the one hand, a police brutality that they were heavy handed. On the other, that the violence on either side of the protests could no longer be tolerated. CAMILA BERNAL, CNN NATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Well, to begin with, they are not allowed back in at the moment. So, there are police officers right now that are blocking the entrance to the area where the encampment was, Paula.

And now, what you're seeing is the cleanup. This is going to take awhile, but the reality is, they were able to clean up pretty quickly, at least most of it. They were able to come in and start that process because it was a very chaotic, tense and violent night and into the morning here at UCLA.

You mentioned 3:00 in the morning, that's around the time that the officers started pushing into the encampment, and what they were doing was essentially getting rid of these makeshift barriers that were exactly in this area here behind me. They started moving in and telling these protesters that they needed to disperse and we saw and heard the flash bangs. You know, we've been here as you mentioned the whole day and saw many of the casings for the flash bangs. You heard them over and over again throughout the night.

They were using batons. They were using these rubber bullets. And actually what one of the students that was part of the protesters here at told me today, is that a lot of the people that are detained, right now, are reporting injuries from these rubber bullets and also from being pushed to the ground throughout the night.

What I was told by the organizer is that most of these protesters are likely facing misdemeanors for unlawful assembly. So they are trying to get that legal process figured out. They are documenting those injuries as we speak and trying to get all of that organized before they even decide whether or not they're going to be able to return to campus.

This was a difficult operation for the California Highway Patrol. They said that they had about 250 officers from CHP, but in addition to that, you also had campus police. You had the sheriffs department. You had LAPD.

So they were essentially almost a one-to-one ratio of officers to protesters. So that gave officers the upper hand. But nonetheless, it took a while and it was difficult.

Take a listen to what one of the supervisors from CHP told me.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SGT. ALEJANDRO RUBIO, CALIFORNIA HIGHWAY PATROL: These operations are always dangerous because we've -- as you saw, you know, we received fire extinguishers, water bottles. So they're always dangerous.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BERNAL: Now, I do want to mention that the mayor of Los Angeles, Karen Bass, says she was here at UCLA during the entire time that these protesters were being pushed out. She released the statement saying that every student deserves to be safe and leave peacefully on their campus. She said harassment and vandalism and violence have no place here at UCLA or in L.A. in general.

[15:05:04]

But again, it was just extremely chaotic and violent overnight, Paula.

NEWTON: All right. We certainly saw that from your reporting. Camila Bernal, thankfully, things are calmer at this hour. Appreciate your report.

Now, as these students protest the war in Gaza, President Biden said this morning he will not be changing his policy on Israel.

Now, pressure had been mounting on the president to address the campus protests as they continue to spread right around the country.

We want to go straight to our Kevin Liptak at the White House.

Kevin, what more have you learned about why exactly the president decided to do this, this morning. I mean, I'll know Donald Trump certainly criticized him for saying absolutely nothing for so long.

KEVIN LIPTAK, CNN SENIOR WHITE HOUSE REPORTER: Yeah. And there had been something of a spirited debate inside the White House about exactly how when President Biden should weigh in on this. And ultimately, I think it was those dramatic images that White House officials woke up to this morning from Los Angeles that eventually tip the scales and eventually led them to determine that the president should come out to the Roosevelt Room today to really try and strike this balance, essentially saying that while he is for free speech, he is against hate speech and saying that while dissent is critical for American democracy, it cannot spill over into discord.

And that is the balance that President Biden was really trying to strike. He really is caught in some political crosscurrents here. On the one side, he doesn't want to alienate himself from some of these young Americans who are certainly very vocal about the Israel war and about the situation in Gaza. He will rely on them if he is to win reelection in November.

But then on the other side there is this imperative if to appear as if he is not presiding over chaos to really enforce this law in order image and certainly many Republicans, including former President Trump, had been accusing him of presiding over a situation that just wasn't tenable and that is sort of what led to this statement today.

But President Biden think is notable on his way out when he was asked whether these protests would lead him to change his policy towards the Middle East was very clear. He said no, and that really does speak to the challenge he has ahead, even though he wants to show these demonstrators that he is supportive of their right to protest, he's nowhere near changing the policies that they are protesting. And so, the president, I think after this speech today, certainly has cleared that deck some of the pressure has been let out on him for speaking out.

But in the end, his policies remain the same and certainly these protesters anger towards those policies will very much continue.

NEWTON: Yeah, and that becomes a political liability as you've been warning us for weeks now, these protesters are not going to let up. It's not just college campuses, right? I mean, the president has faced this set a lot of his events.

LIPTAK: Yeah, certainly, and some of these key states like Michigan, which has a large number of Americans, this could have an effect at the ballot box. I think for President Biden's advisers, the real hope is that a hostage deal with Hamas that would result in a temporary ceasefire could lower the temperature, could provide some diplomatic space for an eventual ceasefire, a permanent ceasefire, and that, that along with the summer break, well bring the temperature down and cause these protests to wane somewhat.

But that deals very much up in the air. They have not received a response yet from Hamas to the latest proposal on the table. If that doesn't come to pass, I think the real fear among president's advisors is that Israel will launch a ground invasion in Rafah, that the war could intensify and could only intensify the humanitarian crisis in Gaza.

So they are at this critical moment, they very much fuel as if they're on a razors edge. And I think the presidents remarks really did reflect that balance that they will continue having to strike going forward.

NEWTON: Certainly a tough position though politically, as you said, we still know ceasefire in sight.

Kevin Liptak for us at the White House, really appreciate it.

Now, I want to bring in Benjamin Kersten, who was a student at UCLA and was at the protest overnight.

It is really good to talk to you because we need your perspective from someone who was on the inside. You know, tensions have been running high all week. We saw the protests. We saw the counter-protests, police or slow to respond with students asking, where the heck are they?

What did you think of everything that's transpired in the last 12 hours in terms of how it was carried out?

Hi there. Can you hear me? It's Paula Newton in New York. Can you hear me?

Hey, there. I am hoping we get Benjamin back.

We are going to stand by to see if he can fix some of his connection problems. In the meantime, we want to take a closer look at the law enforcement response to these camp protests, including, of course, what we've been talking about, right? What we saw at UCLA.

[15:10:01]

With me now to discuss is John Miller. He is CNN chief law enforcement and intelligence analyst.

John, good to have you in on this, you've been since a lot of this went down in Columbia. I want you though to try and compare and contrast for us, right? We had the Columbia operation and to a certain extent also throughout New York City and other colleges and universities. Then UCLA, both have faced accusations of police brutality. I mean, what would you say?

JOHN MILLER, CNN CHIEF LAW ENFORCEMENT AND INTELLIGENCE ANALYST: I would say in the Columbia University action in New York, whether it was clearing the west lawn as they did a couple of weeks ago with no real injuries to any of the people who were moved off or arrested, or even the retaking of a heavily barricaded building the night before last, again no serious injuries to any of the protesters in the course of those arrests.

So in New York, things have gone pretty smoothly. In Los Angeles, at UCLA, you have two factors there, which is one, there was a full-on battle between protesters and counter protesters, pro-Palestine protesters versus anti-Palestinian protesters that went on for probably 90 minutes before there was a police intervention.

So that's -- that's an organizational question which is okay, there was an emergency. Where were the police and what kept them from responding?

Today's action was not pretty. The use of rubber bullets, but you also had protesters who were spraying fire extinguishers in the face of highway patrol, people using barricades, throwing water bottles.

So the question that really lingers in these things is number one, how long does the university let one of these encampments or the taking of a building stand. Number two, do they have the leadership to have law enforcement come in and take care of it? Or is there going to be more hands wringing that causes what you saw at UCLA, which is the thing was allowed to expand, become more fortified, become more crowded, become more entrenched?

NEWTON: And dangerous for everybody involved. You could certainly see that no matter where you stand on this debate.

I have been taken to task because a member of the other generation, John, unfortunately, you're right there with me. You know, students say they're empowered. They want to make a difference.

But you and I both know history. You as a former law enforcement official, where do you ask them to draw the line? Because what they are saying to us is that look, if we do not escalate things, no one hears us. No one does anything about it. No one will negotiate with us.

MILLER: Well, interesting. You know, Paula, what did Mark Twain say? History doesn't really repeat itself, but it does kind of rhyme.

NEWTON: Right. MILLER: If you take the 1968 comparison to now, the same discussion happened. So you had the students at Columbia, of the Students of the Democratic Society, the SDS. And they felt they weren't having enough impact, so they formed an underground group called the Weather Underground and started building bombs. And they blew themselves up in their bomb factory and became the subject of federal prosecutions and manhunts.

And looking back on it, their leaders say, what we should have focused on was building the base, building the base and doing the kinds of protests that would have an impact over the long term. Now, but we didn't have the patience.

And you're seeing something similar here, which is they have to figure out what is the line between passive resistance, legal protest, what the president was advocating today is we're all for protest, but do it within the law and, you know, have impact by the number of people you bring in. The clarity of your message, not by destroying buildings that you take over putting graffiti all over the campus, you know, causing all of the things that finally broke the administration at UCLA to say, we're going to call in the police and go through something that we know is not going to be pretty.

NEWTON: Yeah. It definitely was not pretty, especially when you look at people who were hurt on both sides. And quite frankly, it could have been much more grave than that.

John Miller, we'll leave it there for now. Thanks so much. Appreciate it.

And I'm hoping we can go back to Benjamin Kersten, who is a student at UCLA and was at the protest overnight.

I'm assuming you can hear me like, look, we just want it straight. What did you think of what happened? We've just been discussing it, but how did you view it?

: Yeah.

NEWTON: And, you know, from the outside looking in it did seem as if UCLA did not have a choice here. Things were really getting out of hand.

BENJAMIN KERSTEN, UCLA STUDENT: Well, you know, thanks. It was a really intense evening and I would say that UCLA had a choice. I think UCLA had many opportunities over the last week to take any meaningful step, to show that they were engaging with the interests of the students and workers at the university who wanted to -- wanted to discuss the university's financial ties to this Israeli violence against Palestinians.

[15:15:12]

The university chose a course of non-action. And then of course, we saw how one night that there was a regular presence of counter protesters and one night that boiled over into something where counter protesters and outside agitators were throwing fireworks at the encampment and then, of course, it seems like using that night as you know, as a justification for saying, now, we have to send in a police force.

And colleagues of mine, my peers were hurt last night. It was -- it was very intense and it's -- yeah.

NEWTON: It looks definitely from the video we're looking at now, it definitely does look intense.

Now, look, I want to ask you as a Jewish student, and part of the Jewish Voices for Peace at UCLA, what made you join the protests? And I will say there were some people apparently from the Jewish community who engage in the counter-protests. But I will also say there are students and faculty who are Jewish at UCLA who have reported being assaulted or harassed by people in the encampment.

So why are you there? Why did you stand with these protesters?

KERSTEN: Thanks for that question. Of course. It's complicated and it deserves rigor, and critical thoughts as, as be fitting a public university, such as UCLA.

And one thing that this demonstrates is that Jewish people are not a monolith. I'm a part of Jewish Voice for Peace because of its values of justice, equality, and dignity for all without exception. That's what compels me to join an action like the encampments, along with the incredibly grave stakes, which is that the people of Gaza are facing a genocide and forced starvation.

As far as the response of some maybe Jewish members of the community at UCLA, I actually -- I like I have compassion. I have empathy for the way that certain things might feel in your body or cause discomfort. And yet, I think we need to be very incisive when we're using terms like Jewish and Israeli and Zionist. And also when we're thinking like, I think we need to acknowledge real differences between discomfort, a chant that might make you uncomfortable and material harm or violence.

NEWTON: Yeah. Just so we understand, some people did say that they were harmed and they were harassed. You know, the line is where there is free-speech, it may give you discomfort, but it is still free. On the other hand, there are the allegations of violence.

You know, we were talking about it earlier that the president spoke today for the first time about these protests, Donald Trump made a point of speaking about this before he went into court today. Let's just hear from the two of them.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

BIDEN: I understand people have strong feelings and deep convictions and America, we respect the right and protect the right for them to express that but it doesn't mean anything goes.

DONALD TRUMP, FORMER U.S. PRESIDENT & 2024 PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: These are radical left lunatics. And they got to be stopped now because it's got to go on and on and it's going to get worse and worse.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

NEWTON: So I'm definitely not asking you to pick sides here. What I'm asking you is how does your movement feel about becoming a political flashpoint? Because that's what you've become.

KERSTEN: Yes. Yes. Well, this is certainly true.

And I think that, you know, one thing that I wish people could understand about the movement is that there is real place for disagreement and discussion and learning. I don't enter into it assuming that everyone has a perfect understanding of Jewish history or history of antisemitism.

And what, what does make me sad is that when our elected officials and Donald Trump, former elected officials, use or may orient our understanding of antisemitism around what I find to be legitimate criticism of Israel and Zionism, it not only leaves us less equipped to deal critically with antisemitism but it also distracts from the fact that the U.S. is enabling a genocide against Palestinians, with weapons and funding and political cover.

NEWTON: And I do have to go, but I just want to ask you one thing.

[15:20:02]

At no point during these protests though, did I hear including from you right now about Hamas, about what they are doing and the fact that loudly people are asking for the hostages to be released.

KERSTEN: Sure. You know absolutely. I -- my heart breaks for everyone who is experienced violence in the last almost seven months now, which is horrible to say. And from where I'm sitting, I would say that an immediate and permanent ceasefire is necessary precisely because one war crime does not justify other war crimes.

NEWTON: Okay, we'll leave it there for now. Benjamin, thanks so much. Really appreciate your perspective and coming on today.

KERSTEN: Thanks for having me.

NEWTON: Now when we -- now when we come back, day six of testimony in former President Donald Trump's criminal hush money trial.

Erica Hill is out that at the courthouse for us. She'll be back right after a short break.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

HILL: Today in the People of the State of New York versus Donald J. Trump, contentious moments in cross-examination from a key witness in the Stormy Daniels $130,000 hush money deal. Keith Davidson represented Stormy Daniels and Karen McDougal, two women who were paid to keep quiet about their alleged affairs or trysts with Donald Trump.

In questioning from prosecutors, Davidson testified there's extensive communications with Trump's then-fixer, Michael Cohen, and also Trump's defense has worked really poke holes in that account and in Davidson himself going after his memory. So if his previous work with celebrity clients and questions surrounding those deals, also doing its best to hammer home the reality that Davidson never spoke with Trump directly.

CNN's Katelyn Polantz is following all of this for us now.

So, Katelyn, the defense is now on re cross-examine at this point, and one of the things that just came up is Davidson telling Michael Cohen, or talking about an interview which she said that he'd ever had any indication that Michael Cohen even needed authority from Donald Trump.

[15:25:10]

The defense definitely wants to get that in.

KATELYN POLANTZ, CNN SENIOR CRIME & JUSTICE REPORTER: Yeah. And, Erica as Keith Davidson's testimony has built and built and built until the moment where he is done on the stand, which has just happened just a minute or two ago. He's left the stand. The next witness is going to be up shortly. It has turned to be so much about Michael Cohen to the point where the jury has heard audio of Michael Cohen's voice talking about his work on this deal.

One of the clips that was played said that he was saying, I hate the fact that we did this and his comments back to Trump was what every person you've spoken to told you it was the right move, perceivable Trump. That's not necessarily explicit in what we're hearing from our reporters in the courtroom, but there is a lot of conversation in this Keith Davidson questioning both from prosecutors and the defense team about where his work with Michael Cohen was.

And what the defense has tried to do today is distance all of this from Donald Trump. Make it about Michael Cohen and Keith Davidson and the work that they were doing behind the scenes, normalize what they were doing, make it more about attorney's work or the type of deals that someone like Keith Davidson had done many times over his career, including for other celebrities.

And then also they want to discredit both him and Michael Cohen, try and peel away the trust that the jury may have as these people are testifying in the witness box. So we'll have to see exactly what happens. But one high point here or low point, depending on what side you're on, Erica is when you listen to how these questionings go as they build and build. The final thing that gets said is often the point that one of the sides wants to make, the prosecutors were playing that audio is one of the final things that they were putting into the record as they're playing the audio of Michael Cohen speaking before the jury.

But then on the defense side, one of the final things they did was asked Keith Davidson about the agreement between Stormy Daniels and Donald Trump using pseudonyms and pointing out that Donald Trump's signature or the pseudonymous signature of Donald Trump were not signed on the dotted line -- Erica.

HILL: Katelyn Polantz, really appreciate it. Thank you.

Also with us this hour, our legal experts just for analysis, Michael Zeldin, former federal prosecutor, and defense attorney Joey Jackson.

Good to see both of you.

Let's pick up there on what, you know, as Katelyn pointed out, I'd love just both of your takes on assessing Keith Davidson as a witness.

So I will start with my -- with my prosecutor here, Michael, as you look at this, did he achieve what the prosecution needed him to.

MICHAEL ZELDIN, FORMER FEDERAL PROSECUTOR: Maybe if he can be buttressed by other evidence because he created a lot of opportunity for the defense to argue reasonable doubt, that he didn't tie Trump directly to the payment that he established Davidson as sort of a extortionist in a sense, he established that Cohen had a motive here. So I think that Davidson laid out the possibility of important testimony, but without some sort of support for it, and it may have to come from Michael Cohen himself. I think Davidson was a less than stellar witness for the prosecution.

HILL: So not exactly a win looking at it.

Joey, when you look at this, to Michael's point, that how effective was Donald Trump's legal team here, the defense, in doing their best to poke holes in Davidson as a witness.

JOEY JACKSON, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: Yeah, Erica, so I think they did what they needed do and lets talk about two critical things that, that might be, Erica, right. On the one hand, what they wanted to do was to establish that these non-disclosure agreements are pretty standard in the industry, right? There's nothing to see here in terms of criminality with respect to these non-disclosure agreements, this is what don't -- this is what's done.

And so, therefore, I think that's important because again, it normalizes the issue of non-disclosure in general. There's nothing nefarious about that.

And then the second issue to Michael Zeldin's very good point is that the issue of distance, right? What happens is, is that you have to get the prosecutor tie in the person we see speaking there, Erica, to this deal. Yes. There was a lot of testimony with respect to Davidson, the attorney for Stormy Daniels, the attorney for Karen McDougal, and its interactions with Cohen.

But the issue needs to be to what extent might Donald Trump had knowledge as to what Michael Cohen was doing. To what extent did Donald Trump have to ultimately authorized and approve what Michael Cohen was doing. And so those two things which are very significant are what they as in Donald Trump's defense team wanted to do and the extent to which they've been effective at it will be a jury determination, obviously, that both sides that's going to argue different things.

[15:30:09]

The prosecution arguing very briefly that, look, the inferences that this was to change the course of the election. The inferences that Michael Cohen was his fixer, of course, he was doing it at the direction and at the behest of his boss and, of course, the defense will say quite opposite. There's nothing establishing that connection at all.

And the battle goes to narratives will determine the answer, Erica, to your question as to the effectiveness of this cross examination.

HILL: So, picking up on that what I think was interesting a couple of interesting points there. And I think we have one of these texts. We can put up, put up on the screen there. At one point under questioning from the prosecution, Keith Davidson is talking about this text exchange on election night with the editor of the "National Enquirer".

And they say, what have we done going on to realize that our activities may have in some way assisted that campaign of Donald Trump, right? They are starting to realize what this deal with Stormy Daniels, to keep her quiet, perhaps at that could have contributed to Donald Trump as they're watching election returns come in in 2016 to Donald Trump winning the election.

What's interesting is that on cross-examination, we saw the defense attorney asking a question about, you know, whether he had any idea whether Davidson have any idea that this was in some way going to influence. And he said, he basically said no, right, that wasn't it.

Was that an effective move, Michael, to try to combat that texts? Because does it even matter if Davidson thought this would influence the election? It's about whether Donald Trump and Michael Cohen thought that.

ZELDIN: Well, there's a lot of stuff doing and what you just said, Erica, all good stuff. One is if Donaldson could say -- Davidson can say, yes, I understood from Michael Cohen that this was to influence the outcome of the election, just like Pecker said, that's good evidence for the prosecution.

With respect to the text which says, what have we done here? Remember, the testimony that came in through Pecker was that the "National Enquirer" was involved in multiple facets of the protection of Donald Trump and the promotion of Donald Trump. So to say that that text was singularly related to the Stormy Daniels payment, I think is not going to be easily argued by the prosecution, but I agree specifically with what Joey said, which is you're going to have in closing argument here reasonable inferences based on the way Donald Trump comports himself, which is a micro manager and a tight wad versus the reasonable doubt that this cross-examination and what you'll see in the rest of the course allows. So, it's going to be reasonable inference, don't lose your common sense versus reasonable doubt. And I think that the prosecutor, of course, is trying to win this case, the defense attorney doesn't need to win this case, meaning get an acquittal. They just need to find a juror who says, you know what, I do have a reasonable doubt, and I can't vote for conviction.

HILL: Yeah. Before -- we only have a short time left, but, Joey, I do want to get your take on this. So, just when everybody came back from lunch before Keith Davidson, went back on the stand. The legal team for Donald Trump said to the judge, hey, there are a bunch of posts, bunch of stories our client would like to put on Truth Social, but we want to take you to take a look at them first and make sure they won't violate the gag order to which the judge said, basically, if you've got questions, steer clear of it the order is not ambiguous in his view.

The fact that they are asking the judge to essentially rule on posts ahead of time, Joey, is that a delay tactic? Is it a smart idea? I mean, the judge isn't doing it, but it's an interesting try.

JACKSON: No, I like that, Erica, because it means a couple of things to me. Number one, it means it's in their client's head, right. Donald Trump is finally seeing the light with respect to consequences involving posts that he would normally just post, right. Without asking anybody anything or perhaps saying things that future rallies without asking anyone anything. So it's certainly shows that it's in his head.

Number two, which shows the judge a certain amount of respect that they certainly understand, right, that they have to comport with what the ultimate gag order says. And I think that the fact that they would bring it up to the judge isn't significant, but I also think, Erica, in closing that the judge's response is the most significant. If you have to ask me about it, perhaps it's not something that should be posted, but I don't expect any prejudicial rulings. I only expect rulings when there's a potential violation.

The order is clear about what you can post against and that --

HILL: And I will be waiting for that next ruling. Of course, following the hearing on for alleged additional violations this morning.

Joey Jackson, Michael Zeldin, appreciate it both. Thank you, my friends.

When we come back here, a deeper look at what is fueling these protests on college campuses in the U.S. and frankly around the world.

[15:35:05]

The humanitarian crisis inside of Gaza, over 13,000 children reported killed since the war began, including 10 who were killed while they're playing foosball.

CNN's Jeremy Diamond, with the story of one of those innocent victims and her mother's heartbreaking loss. That's next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

NEWTON: And welcome back.

As we follow student anti-war demonstrations right across American universities and colleges. We also want to look at what is driving those protests and there is, of course, the war in Gaza.

CNN's Jeremy Diamond brings us an investigation into a strike on Al- Maghazi refugee camp. This happened two weeks ago, and it killed ten children. How the Israeli military is responding to questions about what happened and the harrowing grief of a mother who lost her 10- year-old baby girl.

And the warning now, some of the images in his report are graphic, and difficult to watch.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

JEREMY DIAMOND, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Paula, two weeks ago, we reported on a deadly strike in the al-Maghazi refugee camp. The harrowing images of children, the bodies of children's splayed around a foosball table in the middle of a street.

Since then, we have gone back to the scene. Our stringer, Mohammad al- Sawalhi (ph) in Gaza, documenting the crater caused by that strike, the damage caused by the shrapnel from this munition, as well as speaking with the family of Shahid (ph) that little girl in the pink pants who was so impossible to miss amid the carnage.

Three munitions experts have since told us based on our findings that they believe that this strike was likely caused by a precision guided munitions deployed by the Israeli military.

(voice-over): This grainy home video is the closest Mona Owdetallah will ever get to seeing her 10-year-old daughter, a stack of school certificates, a wardrobe of her favorite clothes, the perfume she used to wear. All that remains of the daughter, Mona poured everything into.

There is no Shahid now, every time she came in, she said, mom -- I would say my soul, my soul, my soul has gone.

Shahid was one of ten children killed when an Israeli airstrike hit the crowded street and the al-Maghazi refugee camp where she was playing with her friends. Her pink pants impossible to miss among the small bodies splayed around a foosball table in the chaotic aftermath.

Two weeks later, the Israeli military still won't take responsibility for the strike that killed her.

CNN provided the IDF with the coordinates and time of the attack based on metadata from two different phones in the immediate aftermath. The IDF said they did not have a record of that strike. They said they carried out a strike at a different time than described and that the collateral damage as described in the query three is not known to the IDF. The IDF makes great efforts to mitigate harm to the civilian population from areas where strikes are being carried out.

Evidence recovered, and documented by CNN at the scene of the strike paints a very different picture of Israeli military responsibility. This circuit board and bits of shrapnel walls and shop steps distinctively pockmarked and a small crater barely of foot wide, all pointing three munitions experts to the same conclusion, the carnage was likely caused by a precision guided munitions deployed by the Israeli military.

CHRIS COBB-SMITH, WEAPONS EXPERT: I've seen these strikes so many times, those are relatively small crater in the road, there's no large truck holes fragmentation holds, it would have been which would have been caused by say, a mortar round or an artillery round. The fragmentation is consistent.

DIAMOND: So in your view, this strike was caused by a precision guided drone fired missile?

COBB-SMITH: Absolutely. This is an Israeli munition. The local militias, a local forces do not have anything with this amounted sophistication.

DIAMOND: Before carrying out the strike, Israeli drones would have surveilled al-Maghazi refugee camp from above. Seconds later, the missile hits the street below, landing in the middle of the road, just a few feet away from the foosball table, were shot ahead and her friends were playing that day, delivering certain death.

Against all odds. These children have returned to play at the very same food as ball table, including some of Shahid's friends.

I miss her a lot, Sama says, wearing a necklace Shahid made her. She says she was nearly killed with her friends, going home moments before the strike to drink water. Others were not as lucky. Eight year-old Ahmed is fighting for his life bleeding from his brain, his skull fractured. His chances of surviving are slim, his doctor explains. He is fighting not to become the 11th child killed in that same strike.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

DIAMOND (on camera): And, Paula, sadly, we have since learned that that eight-year-old boy Ahmed has died of his injuries. He becomes the 11th child to have been killed in that very same strike.

And you know, the Israeli military in its statement to us, talk to about the, quote, collateral damage as described, not being known to the IDF. But very notably, nowhere in that statement to the Israeli military pledge to investigate this, to look into how 11 children could have been killed in the strike -- Paula.

NEWTON: The level of suffering just staggering in the -- it is important to get that accountability.

Jeremy, thank you so much. Still to come for us, Erica Hill will be back live outside the

courthouse where testimony for the criminal hush money trial of Donald Trump continues. We'll have that next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[15:47:34]

HILL: Welcome back.

Donald Trump's criminal hush money trial continuing in the courtroom just behind me. A new witness is on the stand at this hour, Douglas Daus, who works for Manhattan district attorney's office.

Katelyn Polantz following a lot of this as well.

So, Katelyn, this witness looks at digital evidence essentially. He's talking right now about two phones belonging to Michael Cohen, what is he -- what is he being asked about?

POLANTZ: Well, he is being asked about Michael Cohen and what he found as an investigator for the district attorneys office in New York. We're getting a couple of different types of witnesses like these who are being put on the stand by the prosecutions team just to bring documents or evidence, paper evidence, video recordings, audio recordings into the record for the jury to see.

And right now, this particular witness he is there to vow verify that these are Michael Cohen's cell phones and to validate that what he was able to pull from them are text messages that were found on them. The text messages they're talking about right now, are texts between Michael Cohen, Donald Trump's personal lawyer during the 2016 campaign, whom prosecutors say was doing a large amount of political and campaign work that wasn't legal work at all especially in the context of Stormy Daniels and they're talking about his texts with Hope Hicks especially around election day.

Hope Hicks is a very prominent communication specialist for the Trump campaign at that time, and is also likely a possible witness in this case for the prosecution could be called testified just like Cohen could in the coming days.

So as the day has gone on, much of the day today, Erica was about Keith Davidson, the lawyer to Stormy Daniels and Karen McDougal on the stand talking about the agreements made to keep their stories quiet about Donald Trump before the 2016 election.

But really, today has been about the shadow in the room, Michael Cohen, who has not yet emerged in the courtroom, but just a few minutes before we have gotten the glimpse into his text messages or the jury was able to hear audio of Michael Cohen speaking, audio recordings where he's speaking about the Stormy Daniels deal.

So, lots of focus there. Will he testify next? When will that be? Erica/?

HILL: Yeah, that is -- that is one of the big questions. Katelyn, appreciate it and thank you.

And joining me as well for a final thought in today's testimony, Jeff Swartz is with us. He's a former Florida judge and a professor at Cooley Law School.

[15:50:01]

Always appreciate your insight and your expertise here. I also want to get your for take on what we saw this morning. So, this morning prior to Keith Davidson being on the stand, there was a short hearing that was held about these four additional alleged violations shins of the gag order by Donald Trump.

JEFF SWARTZ, FORMER FLORIDA JUDGE: Uh-huh.

HILL: I'm just curious, what did you make of where things stand now, especially given the Trump's legal team came back after lunch and essentially the judge to pre-approve any social media posts to which the judge basically said, if you have to ask, you probably shouldn't do it.

SWARTZ: Yeah. And that's probably the best response. Asking a judge for some sort of, I don't know, advisory opinion as to, what do you think, Judge, you're going to fine my guy in contempt again probably is not going to happen. Then if anything else happens on top of what they talk about, it comes back to haunt you. So the judge isn't going to do that.

As far as what came out of today's -- this morning's hearing is simply that there isn't going to be anything worse than what happened in previous order because this all happened before the previous order was entered. However, it still becomes a second time that he has then now found in contempt which I anticipate is going to happen. And as this starts to pile up, it's going to weigh heavily on the judge to go through the threat than he has made. As a judge, you don't threaten something you're not prepared to do.

And by threatening, put him in jail if he's willing what he's doing, he's telling Mr. Trump, okay. This is what I'm going to do and you better be prepared to follow up with it. Always going to look very weak and maybe a little feckless. So, that's -- it's really coming.

HILL: Yeah, and that threat, of course, was jail time.

We only have about a minute left, but I would love your take on Keith Davidson as a witness. How did he play? Who won this day?

SWARTZ: I think that this was not a particularly good afternoon for the prosecution. I don't think that Mr. Trump had a bad day as far as the total day's concerned. I think that it does point, he came -- Mr. Davidson came across as what he is.

He's that type of lawyer. He's not highly ethical. He understands what he's doing. He's putting other words on it and describe what it is but it is what it is. And the problem here for the prosecution is to show that Donald Trump

knew what was happening, that he was directing the response to everything that was being commanded. And he did it for the reasons that everybody believes he did it, and that is that you did it to protect his campaign and that's something that he's going to have to deal with, when and if he takes the stand, which I don't think he will.

HIL: Jeff Swartz, good to have you as always. Thank you.

SWARTZ: Thank you, Erica.

HIL: And stay with us. Stay with us.

Still to come, news that will be music to the ears of all you TikTok fans. Stick around.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[15:55:41]

NEWTON: Rihanna, Billie Eilish, Ariane Grande, those are just a few of the artists whose music will soon be returning to TikTok after a deal was reached between Universal Music Group, one of the world's largest record labels, and the social media app. Now the new licensing agreement announced yesterday means that TikTok users will be able to use music by Adele, Olivia Rodrigo, and other UMG artists and their videos, that's within the next week or two.

Then you may recall that Universal Music Group pulled its catalog from TikTok back in February after the two companies failed to reach an agreement on royalty fees for UMG artists and the use of AI. UMG and TikTok did not disclose any financial details about the deal, but said that it would, quote, deliver improved renumeration for UMG songwriters and artists.

TikTok CEO Shou Chew also said in a joint statement, quote, we are pleased to have found a path forward with Universal Music Group.

Get on with those TikTok videos. New music to use there.

So thanks so much for joining us. I'm Paula Newton, CNN NEWSROOM. We will have more, of course from the courthouse in New York. Stay with us. We'll be up next with more.