Return to Transcripts main page
CNN Newsroom
CNN International: Now, Prosecution Makes Closing Argument In Trump Hush Money Trial; Gaza Health Officials Report New Deadly Strikes In Rafah; White House Reacts To Deadly Israeli Strikes On Rafah; Biden Holds Press Conference Outside Trump Trial. Aired 3-4p ET
Aired May 28, 2024 - 15:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
[15:00:27]
JIM SCIUTTO, CNN INTERNATIONAL HOST: It is 3:00 p.m. in London, 3:00 p.m. in New York, 9:00 p.m. in Rome, 3:00 p.m. here in Washington.
I'm Jim Sciutto. Thanks so much for joining me on CNN NEWSROOM.
And let's get right to the news.
We begin with closing arguments in the criminal hush money trial against former President Donald Trump. Right now, Manhattan prosecutors are making their final argument to the jury, asking them to do what has never been done before in American politics, and that is convict former U.S. president of a felony or felonies.
The prosecution getting the final word, that's how it works under New York law after roughly three hours of closing from Trump's defense attorney Todd Blanche, who urged jurors to discount the testimony from Trump so longtime former attorney and fixer, Michael Cohen, telling jurors Cohen is a liar, the MVP of liars, the greatest liar of all time, GLOAT, coining that phrase. That's clearly a focus of their closing arguments.
Following every development with me, CNN's Katelyn Polantz.
Katelyn, right now, we have the prosecutors in the midst of their closing argument and it strikes me as I watch headlines from inside the courtroom at what they're trying to do here is show that their case goes beyond Michael Cohen to some degree. For instance, they bring up David Pecker, calling his testimony regarding the scheme theme to kill stories inconvenient to the president are utterly devastating, but also adding that when it comes to Cohen, sure, Cohen lied but Cohen lied on Trump's behalf for years.
KATELYN POLANTZ, CNN SENIOR CRIME AND JUSTICE CORRESPONDENT: Yeah. There's a point by point, reputation, everything -- single thing that Michael Cohen said that the defense has now attacked, so they're trying to counter all of those things if the jury wants to choose to believe Michael Cohen. But if the jury doesn't want to believe Michael Cohen, and take all of his testimony out, they even said that, you don't need Michael Cohen to prove that there was a conspiracy to unlawfully influence the 2016 election. SCIUTTO: That's interesting argument.
POLANTZ: Yeah, it started with the Access Hollywood tape, and from then on, it was quite clear that Donald Trump and the people around him were all working together to keep these stories like Stormy Daniels from the public. Michael Cohen was just one of the people in a constellation of others that were acting as what the prosecutor, Josh Steinglass is saying, right now, a covert arm of the campaign. That's what he's calling it.
And that Stormy Daniels, you might not have believed all of her testimony. You might have doubts about who she is, but she is the motive. That's what prosecutors are arguing to the jury. They have a couple hours to go though. It's going to be a long afternoon in court.
SCIUTTO: Just for timeline. So defense has rested, closing arguments over. That's going to end as well for the prosecution today. Jury instructions in the morning, and then the jury gets this case.
POLANTZ: Yeah. Unless prosecutors go really long and the judge wants to break and come back tomorrow. It is a long day, but yes, very likely deliberations will begin and it takes however long as it takes for the jury to come to a unanimous decision. If they can't, we'll hear about it before we reach the very end of this trial, the judge will send them back with what's called an Allen charge said, trying to shatter. Yeah.
SCIUTTO: Before we go, just on another case, because this is the classified documents case, of course, one of four cases Trump has been charged in, and this one has been dragging along delay after delay, you had this request for a gag order from the special counsel because Trump shared this idea, false, that somehow Biden authorized those FBI agents who searched his home to get the missing classified documents were somehow empowered to kill him, but the judge has denied that request for a gag order?
POLANTZ: Yeah. There was a procedure in place for that search of Mar- a-Lago in August of 2022, that if there were -- if things went awry, there is the ability of agents to use force. That's standard. So that was misleading set of statements Trump was saying last week publicly at campaign events, in court, in fundraising emails. The prosecutors came in and said, this is dangerous for the law enforcement officers, and this is harmful potentially to the case. It could influence the jury also, some of these officers that searched Mar-a-Lago are likely to be witnesses at trial. So, he's theoretically actually commenting on the witnesses.
They didn't follow the process, though, according to Judge Cannon. And true, they didn't fully allow the defense the process in place, meet and confer is what it's called. The defense took a lot of issue with this filing coming without being able to give there side more fulsomely. And so, Judge Cannon said denied, no gag order.
[15:05:00]
It's without prejudice, though, which means in court -- SCIUTTO: So they could come back.
POLANTZ: -- the Justice Department could come back and redo the process again, but to be continued.
SCIUTTO: Katelyn Polantz, we know we'll have you back because we're getting to final stages of this Trump trial. Thanks so much.
Joining me now for legal analysis, defense attorney Misty Marris, and longtime jury consultant, Leslie Ellis.
Good to have you both on because -- well, the jury is going to get this case quite soon.
And I want to start with you if I can Misty because you've been on a lot of courtrooms here. The closing arguments for the defense were very much focused on raising a reasonable doubt on multiple fronts, multiple pieces of Michael Cohen's testimony, but a whole host of other avenues here.
And I just wonder as you followed that, do you believe they accomplish their task?
MISTY MARRIS, TRIAL ATTORNEY: They did what they needed to do, Jim.
And the reason being, there's a strategy to what the defense wants the jury to hear, and that's specific relating to Michael Cohen because Michael Cohen has such a very, very great obvious host of credibility issues. What the defense wants to argue is that the jury should actually completely discard his testimony. Their team that up in the closing arguments, the jurors will be read a jury instruction that will say, if you believe a witness lied about something material, not sky is blue. No, this guy is aqua, but a material fact, jurors, you can actually disregard their entire testimony. So that's why you saw so much focus by the defense on Michael Cohen, who the prosecution has largely built their case around.
Now, of course, on the flip side, you're hearing prosecutors try and corroborate Michael Cohen's testimony with other evidence, which is very predictable on that front. But, yeah, the defense really went after Cohen and there was a reason for it and it's really strategic.
SCIUTTO: Let me ask you though, Leslie Ellis, because there were a lot of crooks in prison based on the testimony of other crooks. It happens, right? Folks are going to lie but gone to prison for a whole host of bad things. Juries convict based on the testimony or at least they don't discount entirely the testimony of imperfect, shall we say, witnesses.
So I wonder is that enough, right? Is that -- is that defense enough to -- for the defense to do its best to poke holes in his credibility?
LESLIE ELLIS, JURY CONSULTANT: Well, I don't think so. And I think that defense tried to go beyond that and what they would have to do in order to create enough reasonable doubt is to show that he might not -- he's more than an imperfect witness. He's a liar when it comes to this particular evidence. And that's again on the flip side, that's what -- that's what the prosecutors are going to try to do, is to show even if he is imperfect, he had no motive to lie here around these particular circumstances.
And so, to try to maintain his credibility and jurors look at how they testify, how witnesses say what they say, your demeanor, their tone of voice, how they performed on cross-examination and redirect. And so, the jurors will be looking at all of that to decide if they can get past his imperfections and determine if he was credible when he was testifying about these particular events at issue.
SCIUTTO: And, by the way, the prosecution has made this point, he's already gone to prison for being involved in this very scheme, right? Of election interference by paying off to kill, to kill stories. So he -- he doesn't have what a lot of imperfect witnesses might have, which is to say they're testifying so that they don't go to prison. Prosecutions made that point.
Misty Marris the other strategy the prosecution is seems to be pursuing now as they continue their closing argument is to say, our case goes beyond Michael Cohen. I mean, they said, for instance, the testimony of David Pecker, the former publisher of the "National Enquirer", who discussed this early meeting with Trump and Cohen to kill a lot of these stories going forward. They describe that testimony is an utterly devastating.
I wonder do they -- can they do that successfully saying we've got a lot more here than just his testimony or is Cohen's testimony so central that to convict the jury essentially has to believe him?
MARRIS: Well, so what the prosecution did was exactly what they needed to do, and that was match up a lot of Michael Cohen's testimony with other corroborating evidence. For instance, the testimony of a friendly witness Hope Hicks, Pecker, who had called Trump his mentor and friend.
So they're corroborating Cohen's testimony and they spent a great deal of the beginning of their closing argument rehabilitating and going point for point regarding Michael Cohen's credibility issues. But now, Jim, we see the larger narrative the prosecution is now diving into the timeline and they're talking about this heating between Pecker, Cohen and Trump.
And these are the prosecutions words. Look at this case through the prism of this meeting and the argument is that that's where this entire scheme was hatched.
[15:10:06]
This is where the intent element from the prosecutions perspective, is going to be fulfilled. So they strategically went through all of Michael Cohen shortcomings, tried to rehabilitate those and they're now focused on other evidence that would tend to corroborate the central elements of this whole case, which really comes down to documents. SCIUTTO: No question. At one point, Blanche told the jury, quote, you cannot send someone to prison. That's important based upon the words of Michael Cohen. The judge took major issue with that language. He said it was outrageous and said, quoting the judge, you know, that making a comment like that is highly inappropriate. It is simply not allowed, period. It's hard for me to imagine that was accidental in any way.
I'm curious, Leslie Ellis, there have been moments where Trump's attorney Todd Blanche has gotten the goat as it were of the -- of the judge. And I wonder how that goes down with the jury in your experience because there are others who have commented that this might be channeling Donald Trump, getting some of his arguments out there.
But does that help inside the courtroom? I mean, maybe it helps in the court of public opinion, but does that help in front of a jury typically to arguably antagonize the judge?
ELLIS: Generally, no. Juries do differ quite a lot to the judge. They trust the judge. And from what I understand, this particular judge, they seem to have a pretty good back-and-forth and rapport. So that generally doesn't work for you.
On the other hand, there's sort of two ways jurors think about attorneys. One is do they like them and one is, do they trust them? They don't decide cases based on whether they like an attorney or not, but whether they trust the attorney can have an impact because it can color how they weigh the credibility and the probative value of the evidence that that attorney is presenting to them, either through witness or through their open-air closing.
So, if they get the sense that the attorney is just not a likable a person. That's one thing, but if they get a sense that the attorney is trying to mislead them, then that can do some damage to their case.
SCIUTTO: Before we go, Misty. I mean, has the jury already made up its mind to some degree at this point and in particular, I've heard some speculation from experienced folks like yourself that because they had several days, end of last week, over the weekend to kind of think about this at home, that maybe they're closer to a decision than we might imagine.
MARRIS: Yeah. Well, they certainly had some time and, wow, can you imagine those barbecues when you're not permitted to talk to anybody about this case?
SCIUTTO: Yes.
MARRIS: But, look, there are likely some jurors who has made a determination about maybe the credibility of some of the evidence about the witnesses who are perhaps leaning one way or another, but the strategy in these closing arguments is to pepper in there the language that the jurors will be hearing with the jury instructions, and that is truly the roadmap.
So even if jurors have maybe made a determination about how they're feeling about the case, or maybe leaning one way or the other, those jury instructions could be very central to ultimately coming to their final determination.
And, Jim, remember, in defense perspective, you just need one.
SCIUTTO: Yeah.
MARRIS: They're looking to see if you convince one juror.
SCIUTTO: And those jury instructions, as we understand it, likely to come tomorrow morning.
Misty Marris, Leslie Ellis, thanks so much to both you.
And still to come, Israeli tanks now ruling in central Rafah in southern Gaza for the first time as global condemnation is mounting over Israel's deadly airstrike on a camp for displaced people in Rafah.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[15:16:51]
SCIUTTO: Welcome back.
Israel is under significant pressure now to explain why what it called a precise attack in Rafah on Sunday left 45 people dead, hundreds more injured. At least 29 Palestinians were killed in two separate attacks on displacement camps today. The first coming in the early hours of the morning, striking three tenths in a camp, 150 meters away. That's all from Sunday's horrific attack.
The second happens just hours ago, hitting another displacement camp in the alleged safe zone of al-Mawasi. The IDF denied is striking the humanitarian area. Really this month, Israel had ordered people in eastern Rafah at ahead to that area, al-Mawasi, as the IDF moved into the southern city that was supposed to be the safe place.
Since then, UNRWA, the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestinian refugees, says, some 1 million people have now fled Rafah.
This all comes as eyewitnesses report Israeli military tanks are seen now in central Rafah for the first time since the IDF entered the city.
Jeremy Diamond is in Jerusalem.
Jeremy, explain to me what's happening in Rafah. We've had all this debate, all this pressure from the U.S. saying don't go in, if you go in, go in a limited way. Now, there were tanks in there and there have been multiple strikes in the last 24 to 48 hours, that it killed significant numbers of civilians.
What is actually happening in Rafah and have Israeli forces effectively invaded? JEREMY DIAMOND, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Well, there is no indication of any kind of slowdown in the Israeli military's operations in Rafah, as you mentioned eyewitnesses spotting Israeli tanks in central Rafah today in the downtown part of the city. That is the furthest west that we have seen Israeli tanks and troops actually advanced in Rafah until now, the military offensive of in terms of ground troops was largely centered around eastern Rafah.
And as you noted, the on that strike on Sunday, which killed 45 people according to the Palestinian ministry of health, overnight about 150 meters away from that Sunday strike zone, the Israeli military carried out yet another strike on another camp where displaced Palestinians were living.
Now, in terms of the ground offensive within Rafah itself, there is some indication that this is not the kind of all-out ground offensive that was feared. And part of the reason for that, Jim, is because it's not what we've seen the Israeli military do in northern Gaza or in Khan Younis. We are watching military activity on a much different scale. That doesn't mean that it's not deadly, that doesn't mean that these airstrikes aren't resulting in significant civilian casualties.
But in terms of the movements that we are seeing on the ground, it seems that the U.S. pressure may a have at least gotten Israel to tailor its operations in a more precise way and in a way that causes far less destruction. We should also note, of course, that nearly a million Palestinians from Rafah have already been displaced. And so, in some of these cases, the Israeli military is moving into areas where people have already largely left, although we know that generally, some civilians do still remain.
SCIUTTO: And civilians are dying, we see that the numbers, in the pictures.
[15:20:03]
I do want to talk about humanitarian efforts now, because the U.S. built a pier off the coast of Gaza to get aid in frankly, because its not coming in via the land crossing, spent a third of 1 billion on it. It's now broken up in effect. This has to be rebuilt.
I just wonder what happens next with that pier, but also what is happening with opening land crossings. Is that even on the table or does everything depend on rebuilding this now broken pier?
DIAMOND: Well, we know that last week, the -- following a call by President Biden to the Egyptian president, the Egyptians agreed to send the humanitarian aid that would normally be going through that Rafah the crossing directly from Egypt into Gaza, instead via the Kerem Shalom crossing, which is right on the border between Egypt, Gaza, and Israel.
So we are starting to see that humanitarian aid, but getting to flow through that crossing. But we have also seen that the Israeli military has used some of these crossing points like Kerem Shalom, like the Erez crossing in the north as staging grounds for its ground troops and armored vehicles. And so, we've also seen Hamas targeting those areas in part because there are Israeli troops there. So there's no question that there are still a number of difficulties in terms because of getting the sufficient amount of aid in via the land. And, of course, that floating pier which already was struggling to get the amount of aid in that it was supposed to now broken apart and the future of that effort remains unclear.
At the same time, we are witnessing the mass displacement of Palestinian people within Gaza. And also a shattering of what little sense of safety they may have had.
Here's one man who was displaced in Rafah.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE (through translator): I don't know. I was just walking in the street. I don't know where to come or go. They say that we should go somewhere safe. There is nowhere safe. There is no area that is safe. Where should we go?
(END VIDEO CLIP)
DIAMOND: And so, that is obviously the overwhelming sense of so many people, including those in the Tal-Sultan camp, which was targeted overnight. This morning, we saw hundreds of people beginning to leave that camp heading north hoping that they can find somewhere that is more safe than where they were -- Jim.
SCIUTTO: We'll see.
Jeremy Diamond, thanks so much.
More on the consequences of all this, international fallout, I want to bring in CNN global affairs analyst Kim Dozier.
Oh, stand by, Kim, we have John Kirby at the White House speaking now. Let's listen in.
JOHN KIRBY, WHITE HOUSE NATIONAL SECURITY COMMUNICATIONS DIRECTOR: Again, following an IDF strike that killed dozens, of innocent Palestinians, including children and you've all seen images. They're heartbreaking, they're horrific. There should be no innocent life lost here as a result of this conflict.
Israel, of course, has a right to go after Hamas. And we understand that the strike did kill two senior Hamas terrorists who are directly responsible for attacks against the Israeli people but as we've also said many times, Israel must take every precaution possible to do more to protect innocent life.
As soon as we saw these reports over the weekend about the strike, we reached out to the Israeli defense forces at various levels to gather more information and we've been actively engaged with the IDF and with partners on the ground to learn more about what happened. I'll note that these really defense forces today released initial findings, initial findings that point to the fire being caused by a secondary explosion, not the initial strike.
I think this speaks very clearly to the challenge of military airstrikes and densely populated areas of Gaza, including Rafah, because of the risk of civilian casualties, which of course happened terribly in this case, a horrible loss of life.
We're glad that the Israeli defense force forces are doing a full investigation which we believe is going to be very important to try to prevent future such mishaps.
From that, I take some questions.
REPORTER: Thanks, Admiral.
Can you explain how the strike in Rafah does not cross the lines that the president has set and many of you have repeated that the operation be targeted and limited?
KIRBY: We still don't believe that a major ground operation in Rafah is warranted. We still don't want to see the Israelis, as we say, smash into Rafah with large units over large pieces of territory. We still believe that, and we haven't seen that at this point.
But we're going to be watching this, of course, very, very closely. I wanted just end the answer by making it very clear that regardless, every single loss of innocent life is tragic and every single loss of innocent life should be prevented as much as possible.
[15:25:08]
REPORTER: Has the president seen the images?
KIRBY: I don't know. I can't speak to what he has absolutely been. He's been kept the price throughout the weekend on this.
REPORTER: So you say the tent encampment that was first struck is considered a densely populated area.
KIRBY: The whole area of Rafah, Ed, is densely populated. Now, there has been 1 million or so who have evacuated Rafah proper, but it's not like they're going all that far away. The whole area is densely populated.
REPORTER: How does this is not violate the red line that the president laid out?
KIRBY: As I said, we don't want to see a major ground operation. We haven't seen that at this point.
REPORTER: How many more charred corpses does he have to see before the president considers a change of policy?
KIRBY: We don't want to see a single more innocent life taken and I kind of take a little offense at the question. No civilian casualties is the right number of civilian casualties. And this is not something that we've turned a blind eye to, nor has it been something we've ignored or neglected to raise with our Israeli counterparts, including, Ed, this weekend as a result of this particular strike.
Now, they're investigating it. So let's -- let them investigate it and see what they come up with.
REPORTER: The president doesn't have a personal limit to this?
KIRBY: The president has been very clear and very direct about what our expectations are for Israeli operations in Rafah, specifically, but in Gaza writ large. We don't support, we won't support a major ground operation in Rafah, and we've, again, been very consistent on that.
And the president said that should that occur, then it might make him have to make different decisions in terms of support. We haven't seen that happen at this point.
REPORTER: And why not have him come out and say that himself?
KIRBY: The president has been speaking to leaders throughout the region on a regular basis. He has been addressing you guys and various for. You've got plenty of opportunities to talk to the present, including I might add in a press conference last week.
REPORTER: You've said now that you don't think a major ground invasion is happening in Rafah right now. But as you note, this is a densely populated area. It all is. I understand that this might be a secondary explosion. The Israelis are describing it as a tragic mishap, but isn't this exactly the kind of incident you have been concerned about this whole time?
KIRBY: As I said in my opening statement, this exactly does speak to the challenge of military operations in a densely populated area. A challenge I would add, Mary, that we have been sharing and our perspectives on with the Israelis from our own lessons learned in places like Iraq and Afghanistan, this incidents speaks exactly to that challenge.
REPORTER: And despite the loss of life or do you still believe that this strike was precise and proportional?
KIRBY: There's an investigation. I think we're going to let the Israelis do their work. I don't think you can expect me to speak to the details of a specific strike by Israeli military forces when we had nothing to do I just want more.
REPORTER: And just one more, you've called the strike devastating, the images heartbreaking. But you've stopped short of outright condemning this strike. Can you explain why?
KIRBY: We have been I think, very strident in our condemnations about the deaths of innocent civilians. These deaths are not excused from that. But we have to understand what happened here. There's going to be an investigation. They've already said it's been -- it was a tragic mistake. They're looking into it.
They have been able to investigate themselves and hold people accountable in the past. We'll see what they do here.
REPORTER: Thank you. I want to be clear after this weekend strike, is it -- our assumption that nothing about U.S policy has changed or is changing in regards --
KIRBY: As a result of this strike on Sunday, I have no policy changes to speak to. It just happened. The Israelis are going to investigate it. We're going to be taking great interest in what they find in that investigation. And we'll see where it goes from there.
REPORTER: I just want to ask, we saw a good amount of international condemnation after the strike, whether it was from president, with friends, others in Europe. We have not yet heard from the president publicly at all about this. Why is that?
KIRBY: Well, again, I think I've answered this question with that. You've heard the president on numerous occasions and just the last few days about what's going on in the Middle East and in other places around the world and you'll hear from him again, I'm absolutely confident in that.
REPORTER: One last question, is there any concern that the United States itself has been isolated national as we continue to support you the operation, and you're seeing European allies --
KIRBY: One of the things -- one of the things and one of the things that we've talked about with the Israelis are about the manner in which some of these operations are being conducted is that is the real danger that Israel itself could become further isolated from the international community just by dint of the manner in which they are conducting operations. So this is of concern, clearly, because it's not in -- it's not in Israel's best interests, and it's not in our best interests for Israel become increasingly isolated on the world stage.
[15:30:03]
As a matter of fact, one of the things that president came into office wanting to do, and actually we had made some progress before the 7 of October was working towards a more integrated Israel into the region. So it's in our national security interest to make sure that that doesn't happen.
The president doesn't make decisions and he doesn't execute on policy based on public opinion polling or on popularity contests. He bases his decisions on our own national security interests, what's at stake for our safety and security here at home and abroad, and what's in the best interests of our allies and partners.
Sometimes, what's in the best interest of your alliance in your partnership is to be candid, forthright, even tough with your friend, which we have been able to do with Israel.
REPORTER: I just want to clear, we spoke about Israel's isolation from there. I just want to make clear. Are you concerned at all -- is the administration concerned at all about the United States being out of step or isolated?
KIRBY: I thought I got to that in the last part of my soliloquy.
REPORTER: I didn't -- I'm sorry I did not catch.
KIRBY: You didn't get it. So, I'm going to try again and we'll see maybe take two would be better.
The president is not making decisions based on popularity or public opinion polls here and around the world. He's making decisions about our national security based on those interests. And what meets those interests. And its certainly doesn't meet our interest and it doesn't meet our Israeli partners interests for them to become further isolated.
But he's not making decisions based on that being a worry. He's making decision -- he's making decisions based on what's in the best interests of the American people and our safety and security abroad.
REPORTER: Thank you so much.
So last week from this podium, Jake Sullivan was asked about the Rafah operation and he said, and I quote him, what we're going to be looking at is whether there is a lot of death and destruction from these operation. So if what happened this weekend doesn't qualify as a lot of death and destruction, how would you describe it? And how would you quantify what a lot of death and destruction in Rafah is?
KIRBY: There's not a -- there's not like a measuring stick here or a quota. As we've said many times, the right number of civilian casualties is zero. We don't want to see any.
Now, we've seen more than about a dozen or so that we can, that we know of at least from the strike alone. That's horrific, that's terrible. We don't want to see that.
The answer should be zero. The Israelis have said this was a tragic mistake. They're going to investigate that. We're going to let them do that. But we've also said and this is the other part of what Jake said is that we don't want to see a major ground operation in Rafah that would really make it hard for the Israelis to go after Hamas without causing extensive damage and potentially a large number of deaths.
We have not seen them do that at this point, but we're watching it very closely
REPORTER: Admiral, you said, you said repeatedly that the U.S. doesn't want to see a major ground operation in Rafah, but Israeli tanks just moved into central Rafah.
How is that not a major military operation?
KIRBY: Well, again, I don't want to talk about Israeli defense force operations, but my understanding is and I believe the Israelis have spoken to this, that they are moving along something called a Philadelphi corridor, which is on the outskirts of the town, not in the town proper. That's what the Israelis have said.
We're not on the ground. Gave we're not there. I mean, I don't have -- we don't have troops that I can look at every single soldier and where they are. We're going based on what the Israelis are telling us and what they're saying publicly and what we're able to discern as best we can, as best we can. As you and I speak here today, we have not seen a major ground operation.
And these tanks are moving along, a corridor that they had told us previously that they would use on the outskirts of the town to try to put pressure on Hamas.
REPORTER: NBC's crew in Gaza has described it as being central Rafah. If it were to be central Rafah, would that be considered a major --
KIRBY: A single tank and dozen or so guys? I mean, we're talking about -- you know, you're dragging me into a hypothetical and I hate that, but one tank one armored vehicle does not constitute a major ground operation.
Now, I'm not saying that that's what's going on right now. I'm telling you is what the Israelis have told us about what they're doing. They tell us on the outskirts a major ground operation is thousands and thousands of troops moving in a maneuvered concentrated, coordinated way against a variety of targets on the ground. The kinds of things we've seen, we've done ourselves. That's what we're talking about here.
REPORTER: One last thing on strike today, 21 people, at least 21 people killed in a strike that hit 10 encampments in southern Gaza today. What's the U.S. response to that?
KIRBY: We can't verify those reports. The Israelis are saying publicly that there was no such strikes. I'd point you to them. I can't speak to it.
REPORTER: Thanks. And just want to make this very clear between what's happened on Sunday, what's happened in terms of ongoing ground operations since.
[15:35:06]
There is nothing that you've seen thus far that would prompt a U.S. withdrawal of more military assistance.
KIRBY: I believe that's what I've been saying here.
REPORTER: OK, cool. And just want to get your reaction as well to House Republicans asking for sanctions against the ICC or some of its officials. Is that something that the Biden administration is going to support?
KIRBY: No. We don't believe that sanctions against the ICC is the right approach here. No.
I mean, look, we obviously don't believe the ICC has jurisdiction. We certainly don't support these -- these arrest warrants, and we've said that before. We don't believe though that sanctioning the ICC is the answer.
REPORTER: Thank you, Karine.
Admiral, please helped me to understand. You just said that basically, there is no major operations that you have seen by the Israelis in Rafah. And you insisted that it has to be a viable plan to evacuated all civilians. And that was considered kind of red line, if you don't want to call it a red light.
So explain to me how 1 million people were forced to lead Rafah to place it's considered a safe zone, we've now already 400,000 left. How could be that different from what you said that we oppose the plan unless it's really give us really a viable way to make sure that these one-and-a-half million civilians are safe? So 1 million, they're not really safe, because we have seen yesterday, they have been attacked, they're bombed to death with kids have no heads, headless kids that you've seen in the pictures.
KIRBY: Yes, I am.
REPORTER: And then now, the Israel is basically -- their plan is to let these people leave but not voluntary. These people are forced to leave.
So how could be this any different from your insistent that it has to be a good --
SCIUTTO: We've been listening to White House national security spokesperson John Kirby answering questions, specifically regarding Israel's operation inside Rafah, and specifically, whether its amounts to exactly the military operation the President Biden said he did not want Israel to do and would seek consequences if it were to.
I want to bring back in, CNN global affairs analyst Kim Dozier.
You heard Kirby there describe it in these terms. He said, we still do not believe a major ground operation is warranted in Rafah and haven't seen one yet. So they're in effect saying what's been going on, perhaps a handful of tanks inside Rafah. These strikes we've seen around Rafah that have sadly struck these refugee camps that have killed several people. They're saying it's not a major ground operation.
Is that credible?
KIM DOZIER, CNN GLOBAL AFFAIRS ANALYST: From what we've seen in Rafah, it looks like they're doing mini campaigns. They're taking it neighborhood by neighborhood. And it's not just the White House that Israel is worried about. Britain has also warned that while they're not going to stop weapons deliveries now, and they only give Israel about 1 percent of the weapons it received from the outside, that it's one of the countries saying, go carefully. That said, when you move into a heavily populated area that has been at least half cleared out according to aid workers on the ground, talking about the exodus of people from Rafah, even still, it's so packed that any operation has the chance of, in this case, the Israelis are saying they think there were secondary explosions in the Sunday operations. So it could have been a gas tank, it could have been enemy weapons stores. They don't know. They're investigating.
So yeah, it does beggar belief. They're also saying that at least one of the attacks on tent camps in the past 24 hours was nowhere near where they were conducting operations. That's the hard part about not having reporters on the ground who are being the reliable impartial third party. We don't know.
SCIUTTO: Yeah. I mean, we should note that Israel's track record for credibly investigating such deadly errors is far from perfect.
I do want to play now what President Biden said in his interview with CNN, with Erin Burnett when asked about a potential operation in Rafah. Have a listen.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
JOE BIDEN, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: If they're going to Rafah, I'm not supplying the weapons that have been used historically to deal with Rafah, to deal with the cities to deal with that problem.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
SCIUTTO: He did speak specifically to say, for instance, 2,000-pound bombs, larger munitions, et cetera.
[15:40:03]
But has the White House made clear what crosses President Biden's red line? What would be a major operation? It doesn't strike me. They've defined it.
DOZIER: Yeah, this red line is sort of splashing watercolor. We don't know what point it will be too much for the White House. How many pictures of -- as one of those reporters said, how many bodies they're going to have to see before they say to Israel this is going too far.
But of course, what the Biden administration knows is from Netanyahu's perspective, until he gets one of the top Hamas leaders and hey, over the weekend, there were several rockets launched by Hamas from the Rafah area into Tel Aviv. So it's obvious the Israeli Defense Forces have not stopped the threat.
So Netanyahu at this point feels he can't stop, won't stop. And the Biden White House, I'm sure doesn't want to look ineffectual by saying and now were cutting off weapons and nothing changes on the ground. And it does seem that Netanyahu has been willing to test that limit, test the American president's patients on this.
Kim Dozier, thanks so much. When we do come back, more on the final arguments and upcoming jury
deliberations in the trial, you see him there with Donald Trump. Please stay with us.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
SCIUTTO: Returning now to closing arguments in Donald Trump's criminal trial still underway with little over an hour into the prosecution's final word, which is expected to take some four to five hours. We heard the final closing arguments from the defense earlier in the day.
CNN justice correspondent Jessica Schneider joins me now for an update.
I've heard this word "devastating" from the prosecution this afternoon. First describing David Pecker's testimony, but also describing what the chief attorney said was a devastating fact for Trump.
[15:45:04]
What does that fact?
JESSICA SCHNEIDER, CNN JUSTICE CORRESPONDENT: The fact was that the "National Enquirer" was willing to pay Karen McDougal $150,000 to cover it up and help Trump's campaign. And what the prosecution is doing is building what they did during the trial itself.
They're building that. Of course, Trump knew because he was so intimately involved in these other cover-ups, whether it was the doorman story about the illegitimate child that turned out not to be true or Karen McDougal story, which they ultimately paid $150,000 for. And then that will eventually lead the prosecution to talk about what's at the center of this case is the stormy Daniels payment.
SCIUTTO: In effect making the argument this was a pattern. It was a plan -- payoff, catch and kill. We've heard that phrase a lot, catch and kill stories with the intent of influencing the campaign.
SCHNEIDER: Yeah, the prosecution said it right off the bat when they started their summation. They said, this case is about the conspiracy and a cover-up, and they have to prove both things to make these felony charges stick the conspiracy being that they had to pay these people off, in particular, Stormy Daniels to help Donald Trump's 2016 election campaign. And then the cover-up was hiding the business records.
And they have to prove both things because falsifying business records on its own is only a misdemeanor. They have to also prove that there was an underlying crime to approve the felony.
SCIUTTO: That's in effect the level up from the misdemeanor to the felony in furtherance of another crime.
Jessica, thanks so much. Well, outside the court, the Biden campaign is trying a new, more aggressive tack ahead of a possible verdict, the campaign held a press conference with actor Robert de Niro, along with police officers who defended the U.S. Capitol on January 6. They spoke on in their own words, the danger that Trump poses to democracy.
Have a listen.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
ROBERT DE NIRO, ACTOR & BIDEN CAMPAIGN SURROGATE: If Trump returns to the White House, you can kiss these freedoms goodbye. That we all take for granted and elections, forget about it. That's over, that's done. If he gets in, I can tell you right now he will never leave.
MICHAEL FANONE, RETIRED D.C. METROPOLITAN POLICE OFFICER: At the end of the day, this election is about Donald Trump and his vision for the office of the president of the United States. Not as a public servant who answers to the elected, to the people who elected him, but is an authoritarian who answers to and serves himself.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
SCIUTTO: Let's bring in our political panel now to discuss, Jackie Kucinich of "The Boston Globe" and Shelby Talcott of "Semafor".
So, Shelby, I get having Capitol Hill police officers, they were there on the day, the Capitol attack goaded on by the former president. Robert de Niro though.
And I wonder because there's been talk that, well, Trump. He is a fan of two big de Niro classics, "The Godfather" and "Goodfellas". I mean, was he there to get under Trump skin? Was that part of the intention here?
SHELBY TALCOTT, POLITICAL REPORTER, SEMAFOR: I think intentionally or not, that probably was a fair outcome. I also think Robert de Niro has sort of tried to become more involved in this campaign, but it was an interesting thing because the Biden campaign has also tried to sort of outreach with some of these influencers. And we've seen Donald Trump's team, tried to bring in famous people into their orbit, so it could also just be as simple as this is a new way to campaign, to get folks who might not necessarily be as interested in politics, but really like a certain celebrity into the fold.
SCIUTTO: So let's talk, Jackie, about the rule of the Capitol Hill police officers here, because they're going to send these officers on the trail as well, particularly the swing states, Nevada, Arizona, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Michigan, New Hampshire in the weeks to follow. Part of that broader and central message, we should say from the Biden campaign, the Trump is a threat to the U.S. democracy.
I wonder, do you hear that this is a good approach? Do -- are Democrats welcoming it?
JACKIE KUCINICH, CNN POLITICAL ANALYST: So, there's really no one with a more compelling story, frankly, than some of these officers that dealt with the attack on the front lines that day, particularly as we've seen Republicans try to muddy the water of the history of what happened on January 6. That, for example, it was -- it just a tourist, that got rowdy. It's not what happened there.
So in terms of -- I mean, I think there are much better messengers about the potential threats to democracy. Then perhaps someone like Robert de Niro, who is very famous, but might not be as experienced. They are with -- what happens when democracy is under threat. So having them as messengers, you would imagine they would be effective in delivering what is one of the pillars of the Biden campaign.
[15:50:07]
SCIUTTO: So "Politico" is reporting Shelby Talcott that the president himself will address the verdict when it comes. And, of course, President Biden has been deliberately quiet about the trial, but saying that, well, shouldn't get involved in this, but whatever the outcome we hear "Politico" is reporting, that they'll just simply stress the justice system is fair and to respect the verdict.
I wonder, how did the White House come to that decision and how important might that moment be for Biden? Because, of course, there are disparate outcomes from this case ranging from sending a former president and current presidential candidate to prison to a complete exoneration,
TALCOTT: Yeah, there's been varying degrees or beliefs within the Biden campaign and within people close to the White House about whether or not Joe Biden and the campaign should really lean in on Donald Trump's legal issues. And as you said so far, they have not. I think the reason that they're deciding to now is, A, simply because of the polls, they feel like they need to do something different. But, B, once we have a verdict, there will be an actual tangible result that they can talk of instead of just talking about this ongoing legal case.
And I do believe it will be pretty narrow what Joe Biden speaks about this case, in particular, the question beyond is, does he does he continue on and start talking about the other legal cases that haven't concluded. I don't think he is there yet. I think that they do want to keep that separation because if they do start talking about all of these legal issues that have not wrapped up, it plays into Donald Trump's main claims, which is, of course, that this is all politically motivated.
SCIUTTO: Before we go, Jackie, Shelby mentioned the bad polling for Biden.
Another story in "Politico", this morning, and that is that there's something close to panic among Democratic pollster, some not also pollsters, donors, et cetera.
Do you here that? Is that consistent? Because there's -- there's been a debate, quite a public one, between some saying, yeah, it's really dangerous and others saying, oh, you're panicking, too early. KUCINICH: Absolutely. There's -- there's worry. You hear it all the time when you talk to people both when the doors wide open or when their shots and you're having private conversations.
And I think you see it manifest itself by seeing the money that's starting to be spent. Negative ads. Robert de Niro narrating one of those negative ads that recently came out. So the -- that and of itself, I think you'll continue to see that
because campaign spend money on what they're -- what they're afraid of sometimes.
SCIUTTO: No question.
Jackie Kucinich, Shelby Talcott, good to have you on.
And still to come this hour, China's military is showing off its latest, and let's be frank, scary weapon. That's right -- the gun toting robot dog.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[15:55:37]
SCIUTTO: Like a scene out of a dystopian movie, but all too real. China unveiled its new armed robot dog during recent military drills with Cambodia. Equipped with an automatic rifle mounted on its back, the robot dog can walk and hop around like a real dog, but it can also lead an infantry unit in combat, identify enemies, so they claim and strike targets.
CNN's Mike Valerio has the latest on, goodness, this amazing and scary sci-fi weapon.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
MIKE VALERIO, CNN INTERNATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: So during recent military drills with Cambodia, China's military showed off a robot dog with an automatic rifle on its back, and well, this is what happens.
Its a two-minute video made during the China-Cambodia military training exercise known as Golden Dragon 2024. In one drill, the rifle-firing robot leads an infantry unit into a training building. And a soldier says, in the video that's released by state broadcaster CCTV, quote, it can serve as a new member in our urban combat operations, replacing our human members to conduct reconnaissance and identify the enemy and strike the target.
Now, a CCTV video from last year also highlighted China's rifle-armed electronic K9s in a joint exercise with the Chinese, Cambodian, Laos, Malaysian, Thai, and Vietnamese militaries.
The dogs have been popping up on China's heavily regulated social media.
And this is the latest instance of that happening.
Mike Valerio, CNN, Hong Kong.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
SCIUTTO: Concerning to say the least, thanks so much, Mike, for that reporting.
And thanks to all of you for joining us today. I'm Jim Sciutto in Washington.
Trump trial coverage continues after this.
