Return to Transcripts main page
CNN Newsroom
CNN International: Soon: Jury Deliberations Begin In Trump Hush Money Trial; Now: Judge Delivering Instructions To Trump Jury; CNN Analysis: U.S.-Made Munitions Used In Rafah Strike. Aired 11a-12p ET
Aired May 29, 2024 - 11:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
[11:00:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
RAHEL SOLOMON, HOST, "CNN NEWSROOM": Hello, and welcome to our viewers from all around the world and those joining us on Max. I am Rahel Solomon live here in New York.
Ahead on CNN Newsroom, jury deliberations in Donald Trump's hush money trial are set to begin soon in New York. We will look at what to expect and when a potential verdict could be reached. Plus, pressure is mounting on the U.S. as a CNN analysis finds that U.S.-made munitions were used by Israel in that deadly strike on a displacement camp in Rafah. We will take you live to Jerusalem with the latest. And we are live in Johannesburg where South Africans are heading to the polls in what is expected to be the most pivotal general election since the end of apartheid.
Well, we want to begin in Lower Manhattan where any moment now the jury in Donald Trump's hush money trial will begin deliberating. For more than seven hours on Tuesday, those jurors listened to closing arguments, both from the prosecution, trying to prove its case, and the defense, which argues there is no case, and it is this very jury, these top people, seven men, five women, who will decide Donald Trump's legal fate.
Judge Juan Merchan begins delivering jury instructions a little less than an hour ago. And once he wraps, deliberations will begin, and that means we could have a verdict as soon as today. Trump has pleaded not guilty to 34 felony counts of falsifying business records.
And in its closing, the defense hammered at the credibility of Michael Cohen, at one point, telling jurors that Cohen is the quote "MVP of liars". The prosecution swinging back, arguing there is quote "a mountain of evidence to prove Trump falsified records to cover up a damaging story of an alleged affair." That cover-up, prosecutors allege, coming just before the 2016 election. A lot to cover today.
Let's bring in CNN Justice Correspondent Jessica Schneider, who joins us from Washington. Jessica, good to have you again. So, talk to us about the judge's instructions. He is still speaking. What have we heard so far?
JESSICA SCHNEIDER, CNN JUSTICE CORRESPONDENT: Yeah, Rahel. He is really detailing very carefully all of the legal elements that the jury needs to consider when they go into that deliberation room. And there have been some very important instructions so far. So, first off, that all important reminder that the prosecution has to prove this case beyond a reasonable doubt. And sometimes, that's hard for jurors to grasp. So, the way the judge described it, he said, you can't say a defendant is probably guilty. You have to find that it is virtually a sure thing that the defendant did it. That's the -- beyond the reasonable doubt.
Then to the actual law. The judge explained it this way as to what the jurors must find. I'll read you the quote. He said, "You must find beyond a reasonable doubt first that he, Donald Trump, solicited requested, commanded, importuned or intentionally aided that person to engage in that conduct and second that he did so with the state of mind required with the commission of the offense." And then the judge explained a little bit more about acting in concert with somebody or acting alone. The judge said, If Donald Trump didn't directly falsify the business records, even if the jury finds that he requested it or aided in the falsification, he can be found guilty.
And crucially here, the jury needs to be unanimous, obviously, on all the counts, but they can in fact disagree on this. The judge explained that this way. He said they can disagree whether Trump acted alone or acted in concert with someone else and they can still find Trump guilty even if they disagree whether or not Trump did it alone, or acted with somebody.
And then, Rahel, I thought this was really important. The judge talked about Michael Cohen's credibility. Of course, that was something that the defense attorneys really zeroed in on, on their closing. And notably, the judge did tell the jury that if they find that any part of his testimony was unreliable, and remember, he was on the stand for several days, the jury can disregard all of his testimony. And that was the big gamble with prosecutors putting Michael Cohen on the stand that even if the jury finds one part of his testimony wasn't credible, they can disregard everything, Rahel. So, that'll be interesting to see how the jury interprets that.
SOLOMON: Yeah. Absolutely. So, Jessica, remind us now, once the jury gets this case, what happens now? I mean, what do they have access to once they go into that room? What can they bring with them? What can't they bring with them? What happens now?
SCHNEIDER: Well, notably, Rahel, I mean, the judge is going on an hour now of giving these somewhat come complex jury instructions.
[11:05:00]
The jury will not actually get a physical copy of these instructions. They're allowed to take notes and a lot of them are doing that right now, but they won't be given any paper to bring into the jury room with them. If they need evidence reviewed, if they say, wait a second, didn't Michael Cohen say X, Y, Z? They won't actually have the transcript or any evidence in the jury room with them. They will actually have to send a note to the judge and say we want a refresher on what Michael Cohen said about whatever they want and explain her on.
So, the only thing that they'll have back in the jury room with them, Rahel, will be their own notes, that a lot of them have been painstakingly taking through this very long, very intricate trial. And then, of course, they'll have their memories. So, who knows how long this will last? I will note that they'll probably begin deliberating soon. They don't usually deliberate during the lunch hours, and they're supposed to be dismissed today by 4:30. So, probably the most deliberation will be about four hours today. We'll see if they can come to a verdict that quickly.
SOLOMON: Fascinating. We certainly will be watching. Jessica Schneider, we'll see you a little later in the show. Jessica, thank you.
Let's discuss this more. Let's turn now to Criminal Defense Attorney Amy Lee Copeland, who joins us live from Savannah, Georgia. Amy Lee, good to have you on. Let's just start with jury instructions. Based on what we just heard there from our correspondent, did the prosecution's job just get a little harder? What do you think?
AMY LEE COPELAND, CRIMINAL DEFENSE AND APPELLATE ATTORNEY, & FORMER FEDERAL PROSECUTOR, SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA: The jury instructions, the judge here used the standard instructions, and the prosecution has always been the one that's been charged with proving the facts in conformance with the law. So, what the jury instructions do is give the jurors a roadmap about what they have to analyze the facts under. As the prior correspondent said, it's interesting, because jury instructions are both a mix of the law and telling jurors not to abandon their common sense of the door in judging things like credibility.
So, the prosecution, the state knew all along what the law was, and it certainly introduced its case in accordance with the law and how it thought the judge would charge the law. We'll see what the jury does, though. As Tom Petty said, the waiting is the hardest part, and I think that really holds true here in jury deliberations.
SOLOMON: Amy Lee, what are you going to be listening for, and any potential questions from the jury? I mean, obviously, you have competing narratives here. The prosecution says there is a mountain of evidence. The defense says there is not a shred of evidence. What are you going to be listening for in jury questions?
COPELAND: Well, sure. I'm really interested to see if they want to hear testimony replayed or reread to them from any particular witness, or if they need to see a particular exhibit. Another clue will be, what instructions do they want to hear again? They can't have a copy of the instructions in the jury room, which is a little unusual, but it is New York law. And that can kind of telegraph to us all what they're thinking, what they're looking at, and what they hold important in this particular case. They've got a lot to choose from, 50 hours of testimony and 22 witnesses. So --
SOLOMON: Amy Lee, it's interesting, because going into this trial, many legal observers said that of the different cases that Trump faces, this was the weakest one. It's interesting to me, because you've been on both sides of that courtroom. You've been a federal prosecutor. You've been a criminal defense attorney. Right now, on the other side of this trial, which side would you rather be on? I mean, who seems to have the strongest upper hand going into this, if anyone, from your perspective?
COPELAND: The prosecution does in this particular case, they knew that Cohen was a flawed witness, to put it nicely. But, they really did the best they could to corral all the facts in their favor. And I thought they did a great job with supporting what he was going to say and making sure the jury knew that things supported what Cohen would eventually say in its entire presentation. I mean, all roads led to Michael Cohen. And they made it easier for the jury to convict without having to listen to Michael Cohen at all.
SOLOMON: But, what about when the defense says sort of snappy things, zingers, like Michael Cohen is the MVP of all liars? He is the GLOAT, the "greatest liar of all time." From your experience, how effective are zingers like that? How effective are sort of devices performatively like that for jury?
COPELAND: Different people have different styles. I personally like to be a golden retriever, hiding a tenacious bulldog beneath me, but everybody has different styles. We'll see how this works for him. I always view it, you're asking judges and you're asking juries to do reasonable things, and it really behaves an attorney to act reasonably that you're not asking him to do anything crazy, because the law is just another word for being reasonable. So, we'll see how it plays with the jury.
SOLOMON: And then --
COPELAND: But, let's be fair too. I think the defense attorney was also playing to somebody else in this presentation. So, I think he played to the client.
SOLOMON: There is that. There is always the client, the person who is paying the bills.
[11:10:00]
Amy Lee, let me just ask really quickly in terms of logistically here. Is it possible in terms of the possible scenarios that former -- the former President could be convicted of some of these charges, and not all of these charges? I mean, walk me through the range of possible scenarios here.
COPELAND: Certainly. Yes, the jury has to reach a unanimous verdict on each of the 34 charges. So, they have to go through 34 charges one by one. The jury could convict on some. They could acquit on others. They have to judge him individually. They can't say, well, geez, because he is guilty on count one, he has got to be guilty on count seven. They have to look at him one at a time. In addition to guilty and not guilty verdicts, the juror or several jurors could say, we don't think he has done anything at all, and the other jurors could say we think he is guilty. You could have holdout jurors. And you would know that because the note would be sent to the judge saying we are hopelessly deadlocked. We can't continue any longer.
If that happens, the judge would give what's called an Allen charge or Dynamite charge, designed to blast up a jury deadlock. And he would send the jury back out to deliberate. Typically, the longer the jury stays out, the more likely it is, it tends to favor the offense. It tends to favor a mistrial or a hung jury.
SOLOMON: Fascinating. Any sense of sort of a typical benchmark, if it goes beyond a few days, it tends to look more and more likely, or is it just every case is so different?
COPELAND: Well, I think a lot of times when you go into cases, you kind of have a fairly decent idea of what a jury is going to do. You always hope for the best, but you're pretty realistic about it. This is a wildcard case because you have such a singular defendant. People either love or hate them. And the jury instruction has talked about that. They both talked about treating the former President as a member of the community, but they also talked about not bringing any of these grudges or these good feelings into the jury room with them. With this, it's just particularly hard to determine what a jury is going to do and how long it's going to take. So, like everybody else, I'm just waiting to see what happens.
SOLOMON: And the waiting is the hardest part, as you said. Amy Lee Copeland, good to have you. Thank you. All right. We'll continue to follow that.
In the meantime, we want to turn our attention to the Middle East. The UN Security Council is meeting right now to consider a draft resolution demanding immediate ceasefire in Gaza. Permanent member France says that it is quote "high time for the council to take action" after dozens of Palestinian civilians were killed in an Israeli strike at a displacement camp in Rafah, Israel says that it's investigating what caused the fire to sweep through that camp, where families were sheltering in tents, suggesting that there may have been a secondary explosion. Now, much of the video from the scene is far too graphic to air, showing people pulling charred bodies from the ashes.
And a CNN analysis finds that U.S.-made bombs were used in the strike. The White House says that that attack and Israel's invasion of Rafah in general do not cross President Joe Biden's declared red lines. In the meantime, a major blow to the U.S. effort to facilitate desperately needed aid into Gaza. $320 million new pier constructed by the U.S. military has broken apart in heavy seas. Repairs expected to take more than a week. A lot to get to.
Let's bring in CNN's Jeremy Diamond, who is in Jerusalem for more. Jeremy, let's start with this, the CNN analysis showing that the weapons used in that deadly strike on that displacement camp in Rafah were U.S.-made. What more can you share with us?
JEREMY DIAMOND, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Yeah. That's right. According to four weapons -- explosive weapons experts, this was not only a U.S.- made munition, but they were actually able to identify the specific type of munition that was used. And in this case, according to our analysis, it was a GBU-39 Small Diameter Bomb. We heard the Israeli military describing these munitions as carrying a 37-pound warhead and that indeed matches this specific type of small diameter bomb that was used in this case. These bombs are the types of bombs that the United States has been encouraging Israel to use more of, rather than using those 2,000-pound bombs that they have been dropping across densely populated areas of Gaza, because it is intended to limit the amount of civilian casualties.
That being said, as some of our experts pointed out, when you use even this smaller type of munition in a very densely populated area, like say in this case, dropping it on two container-like structures right next to displaced -- the hundreds of displaced Palestinian civilians, there is a higher likelihood then of causing civilian casualties. And indeed, in this case, at least 45 people were killed, according to the Palestinian Ministry of Health. The Israeli military is maintaining that these munitions alone could not have caused the size of a fire that erupted at the scene following the strike. But, that remains to be seen exactly whether or not there was something else on the scene that caused the secondary explosion, a theory that the Israeli military has put forward although without any verifiable evidence so far.
[11:15:00]
SOLOMON: Jeremy, let's stick with civilians now. Talk to us a little bit about what the latest is on the dire humanitarian situation on the ground for civilians.
DIAMOND: Yeah. Well, the United Nations is now estimating, Rahel, that more than 940,000 civilians have been forced to flee Rafah as the Israeli military expands its military operations in that city, which used to be a kind of last refuge for about one and a half million Palestinians, who -- many of whom had been displaced from other parts of the Gaza Strip. The Israeli military is now expanding its military offensive in Rafah with tanks spotted in central Rafah. That is forcing the World Central Kitchen to close its main kitchen in that very same city and move many of its operations further north.
We're also watching impacts to hospitals in Rafah already. And beyond that, of course, there is the question of humanitarian aid and whether or not sufficient humanitarian aid is getting into Gaza. And so far, all signs point to that not being the case. That's because -- partly because the Rafah border crossing has been closed for over three weeks now since the Israeli military launched that offensive in Rafah and took control of the Gazan side of that border crossing.
But, we're even seeing challenges even after Egypt agreed to send the trucks that would normally go through that crossing through the Israeli-Gaza Kerem Shalom crossing instead. 370 trucks, for example, arrived from Egypt on Monday to that Kerem Shalom crossing, but only 30 of those trucks were actually picked up by the United Nations for distribution, speaking to the enormous security challenges that exist in Gaza that are really hampering the distribution of that aid even once it makes it across the border. Rahel.
SOLOMON: OK. Jeremy Diamond live for us there in Jerusalem. Jeremy, thanks a lot.
Now, let's turn to South Africa where it is a momentous day. Polls are open for an election that could see historic change in the Rainbow Nation. For the first time since the end of apartheid, the ruling ANC party might be about to lose its majority. South Africa is battling the highest sustained rate of unemployment in the world. Other massive challenges include rampant corruption and a rise in violent crime more.
For more now, let's bring in CNN's David McKenzie, who is live for us in Johannesburg. David, as I understand it, you've been out there. You've been talking to voters. What are you hearing on the ground?
DAVID MCKENZIE, CNN SENIOR INTERNATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Rahel, we've been here all day. And I have to say, there has been a lot of enthusiasm right now towards the evening. The sun has gone down. People are here with their children, their grandchildren. Even though it's a public holiday, many people had to show up for work. Maybe their bosses weren't too happy for them to take the whole day off. But, there is a sense of change in the air, at least in this part of the city of Johannesburg, which is, I must say, a stronghold of a number of opposition parties. We've been speaking to people all day. Here is what they had to say.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
MCKENZIE: Why do you think this election in particular is a very important one since 1994?
SYDNEY RADEBE, SOUTH AFRICAN VOTER: There is a big competition now. It's very tight. And when it's tight, we definitely saw that we are going to see what we want to see, the change, because nothing has been happening. These guys are relaxing. They are not doing anything for us.
MCKENZIE: Some of your friends don't want to vote today, you told me. Why do you think that is?
NEWTON UGBOH, SOUTH AFRICAN VOTER: They have seen what's happening and they don't like it. So, they think things are not going to change at all. But then, I don't believe that. That's why I came here to vote.
ROSELYNE TSWAKAE, SOUTH AFRICAN VOTER: No. It's not my first time. It's not my second. It's not my third. I've been voting since, but no change. We don't see any change.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
MCKENZIE: Well, the supporters of the ANC, that's Nelson Mandela's party, are saying don't count them out yet. They have a considerable force of people on the grounds, peacefully bringing people out to vote, corralling those who might not really want to go and vote or feel that it's -- they are apathetic, and you can't count them out, particularly in rural areas and some of their traditional strongholds in this country. Why is this all significant? Well, for 30 years, the ANC has dominated
electoral politics in this country, generally, easily won these national election. Their support has been slipping because of allegations of corruption, mismanagement, the unemployment crisis in this country. If they drip -- dip below 50 percent, they may have to form that coalition and will be in uncharted territory then for South African politics. Rahel.
SOLOMON: Well, fascinating. Keep us posted. David McKenzie live for us there in Johannesburg. David, thank you.
All right. Coming up, U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken is in Moldova ahead of a NATO meeting in Prague. Coming up, we'll look at what's on the agenda.
Plus, here in the U.S., a severe storm threat remains for millions of people. CNN Meteorologist Elisa Raffa tracking all of it for us. Elisa.
ELISA RAFFA, CNN METEOROLOGIST: Yeah. We've had more 1,000 storm reports since the holiday weekend, destructive storms, many still without power.
[11:20:00]
We're tracking where they had next. That's coming up.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
SOLOMON: Welcome back. America's top diplomat is in Moldova at this hour, ahead of a two-day NATO meeting in Prague. Here is U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken meeting within Moldovan President. Ukraine is expected to top the agenda at both meetings. It come as three European nations, France, Germany and Poland, all say that Ukraine should be allowed to strike targets inside Russia from which Ukraine is being attacked. Russian President Vladimir Putin saying that allowing that could lead to quote "serious consequences".
Joining me now with more is Melissa Bell live from Paris. Melissa, French President Emmanuel Macron also saying that Ukraine should be allowed to neutralize Russian targets. What more is Russia saying about this?
MELISSA BELL, CNN SENIOR INTERNATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: That's right. What we've heard is a very direct response from Vladimir Putin yesterday, Rahel. He was speaking from Uzbekistan, saying that these new voices, these new moves that are coming from inside NATO, it began with Jens Stoltenberg last week, and as you said, Emmanuel Macron, and his German counterpart yesterday, now the Polish leaders as well have said that they are for this, the idea of lifting restrictions on those weapons.
What we heard from Vladimir Putin was that this would mean any long- range missiles used against Russian targets on Russian soil would involve Western intelligence, Western military personnel, were they inside Ukraine or not, and that therefore they were considered this an attack by NATO on Russia, essentially warning that any small and populous country inside the alliance needed to be very careful about what happens next.
So, a very direct threat to some of the Baltic States there, no doubt. Certainly, those countries on the Eastern Flank of NATO that have been the most concerned about Russia's next intentions may be, Rahel. This is how the French President justified this important shift in position.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
EMMANUEL MACRON, FRENCH PRESIDENT (Interpreted): So, we're staying exactly within the same framework. We think that we should allow them to neutralize the military site from which the missiles are fired, and basically, the military sites from which Ukraine is attacked, but we must not allow them to hit other targets in Russia, obviously, civilian capabilities or other military targets.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
BELL: This shift has come in direct response, really, Rahel, to what we've seen over the course of the last month to the north of Kharkiv, with so much of Kharkiv region but the city of Kharkiv, Ukraine's second, of course, now so directly targeted since the opening up of that third front in Russia's surprise spring offensive. That's led to this shift in a number of Western capitals, not all, but some, that it is time now to allow Ukraine to be able to respond, no longer forcing it to fight, as the NATO Secretary General put it, with its hands tied behind its back, Rahel.
[11:25:00]
SOLOMON: All right. Melissa Bell live for us in Paris. Melissa, thank you.
We want to turn now to the severe weather we've been following in the U.S. Millions of Americans will get just a short reprieve from storms that have already caused widespread damage and killed more than 20 people. Hundreds of thousands of people in Texas are without power after thunderstorms and tornadoes turned buildings into piles of rubble, look at this, damaged cars also broke down power lines, over the holiday weekend. Today, from North Dakota to Texas, 11 million people are still in the path of severe weather. And on Thursday, that threat moves to Oklahoma as well, affecting millions more.
Let's bring in our meteorologist Elisa Raffa, who is across all of the latest warnings. Elisa, what are you seeing?
RAFFA: Yeah. I mean, the storm reports over the weekend and the last couple of days have been remarkable. Look at some pictures and video from the overnight. This is a blanket of hail. It looks like snow. But, we had hail come down so much of it in thunderstorms in Colorado, not too far from Denver. You could see the flooding rain in the streets and the hail piled up like it is snow plow. And you could even take a shovel to it. But, look at the heavy rain that came along with it. In Texas yesterday, we had gusts up to 80 to 95 miles per hour, 95-
mile per hour gusts reported and that knocked out power. At last check, we have nearly half a million people still without power in Texas from those destructive winds that came through yesterday and knocked around some of those power lines. Right now, we've got a few storms that are still lingering around parts of Texas. They are sub- severe. So, we're not finding any warnings for damaging winds or large hail. But, we could find isolated cases of that as we go through the afternoon. For now, it's just some heavy downpours getting to the state line with Louisiana and some frequent lightning strikes.
Here is that risk for today. It includes Houston, an isolated risk of damaging winds and large hail, and then from border to border from Texas all the way up through the Dakotas is where we can find some cases of damaging winds and large hail today as our next storm system tries to develop. So, we can see that we'll have maybe isolated storms as we go through the day today. Maybe a supercell or two overnight tonight, then it organizes into a wind. That could bring some damaging winds as we start out tomorrow morning from Oklahoma City to Dallas, Texas, and that could continue as we go into the afternoon.
Here is the threat for tomorrow. It's a little bit of a higher threat, a level two out of five, slight risk, stretching from Dallas up through Oklahoma City. And then, (inaudible). That's where we can find, again, some damaging winds and large hail that we'll want to watch out for, and it's coming in what's been an incredibly active weekend. More than 1,000 storm reports, including multiple tornadoes, and it's coming in what's been an incredibly active severe weather season. Since January 1, we've had more than 1,000 reported tornadoes. Average to date would have been just a little bit more than 700. So, it's been incredibly active and it continues through the next couple of days. Rahel.
SOLOMON: Yeah. Certainly a rough period for all of those people. Elisa Raffa, thank you.
All right. Still to come for us, closing arguments are in the books. Now, it's up to the jury to decide which narrative to believe. Our live coverage of Donald Trump's hush money trial continues after a short break. Plus, an exclusive CNN report, accusers of Sean "Diddy" Combs could soon be telling their stories to a federal grand jury. Find out why and what it could mean to Combs.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[11:30:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
SOLOMON: Welcome back. I want to take you back to one of our top stories we are following this morning in Lower Manhattan and that's where jury deliberations have now just got underway to decide whether or not to convict Donald Trump of criminal charges in the New York hush money case. Trump has pleaded not guilty to the 34 felony counts. He is accused of falsifying business records but denies any wrongdoing. In its closing, the defense hammered out the credibility of Michael Cohen, at one point telling jurors that Cohen is the GLOAT, the greatest liar of all time", that there isn't a shred of evidence. The prosecution swung back, arguing there is a mountain of evidence to prove that Trump falsified records to cover up a damaging story just before the 2016 election.
Justice Correspondent Jessica Schneider is back with us now from Washington. And Jessica, it looks like we are now -- we're in it, three minutes into jury deliberations. Talk to us about sort of how we got here, the last few things the jury heard from the judge.
SCHNEIDER: Yeah. The clock is beginning. Interestingly, Rahel, there are several alternates who actually won't be able to deliberate, but the judge has just asked them to stick around in case they are needed. So, they'll be waiting. They might not be used, but they still will be in the courtroom. But, yes, these jurors are now at work. They're deciding on whether Donald Trump is guilty or whether he will be acquitted on some or all of these 34 felony counts. You're getting a glimpse at the jury profile right there. Interestingly, there are two lawyers on the jury. So, we'll see how they might interpret this case.
The judge did remind the jury several times, they must be unanimous in their decision. They cannot bring any cell phones or electronic devices into the room, but they can bring their notebooks that they've taken copious notes on throughout this process. The jury has been sitting through about five weeks of this trial, and now they will take everything they've heard and seen and apply it to the law in this case.
The judge gave very specific instructions about what they can and can't consider, and how they apply it to the law. Interestingly, he said that, even if they find that Donald Trump was merely involved, rather than being the main player in this whole scheme to falsify business records, they can in fact find him guilty. But, of course, they also have to find that there was another violation of another underlying law, like federal election law or tax fraud. And this is all in order for these counts, 34 counts, to rise to felonies.
So, Rahel, the jury is at work beginning at 11:28 this morning. We anticipate that the jury will take about an hour for lunch at some point. They won't work during that hour. They'll likely go to 4:30 p.m. today. And again, the only items they'll have with them are their notes from whatever they've jotted down throughout this lengthy trial. We've also just learned that they're able to bring laptops back into the deliberation room. These are court sanctioned laptops that have all of the evidence from the trial. Two of the jurors were just instructed on how to use those laptops, to pull up any of the evidence that was admitted into this trial.
So, a lot to go through. There was a lot of testimony, a very long trial, and we'll see how long this deliberation takes. Rahel.
SOLOMON: Yeah. You laid out the schedule pretty well there. So, this could go until 4:30 today.
SCHNEIDER: Yes. SOLOMON: They still have an hour lunch break, but they still have a few hours where they'll discuss and they'll deliberate, and we shall see. This could --
SCHNEIDER: Yeah.
SOLOMON: -- go on for hours. This could go on for weeks. Jessica Schneider, thank you.
SCHNEIDER: Thank you.
SOLOMON: Disgraced Hollywood mogul Harvey Weinstein is expected to be in a New York courtroom today. It's a discovery hearing ahead of the retrial of his 2020 sexual assault case. Prosecutors want to lock in a new trial date to start right after the Labor Day holiday in September. Now, Weinstein, you might remember, had been sentenced to 23 years in prison for first-degree criminal sexual act and third- degree rape. Those guilty verdicts, though, were overturned last month by the New York Court of Appeals. That appeals court said that the judge made a mistake when he allowed the jury to hear testimony from several women who claimed that Weinstein assaulted them, although those allegations did not lead to charges.
With me now is Amanda Brainerd. She served as a juror in that very 2020 case and has caused the reversal of the verdict, now an insult to the jury.
[11:35:00]
Amanda, good to have you on the program today. I want to get to the New York hush money case in just a moment. But, just first talk to me a little bit about how you're processing this moment. We now have this discovery hearing with Weinstein again, and just the very overturning of the conviction. I know you mentioned how hard the jury worked to even get to the conviction. How are you processing this moment?
AMANDA BRAINERD, JUROR IN HARVEY WEINSTEIN'S 2020 RAPE TRIAL: I just am amazed by the irony of it. And I really feel terrible for the victims who may have to re-testify, and to go back through that is going to be incredibly traumatic for them.
SOLOMON: And you've said, even being a juror, if I'm not mistaken, you called that experience traumatic. You called it harrowing. As these jurors now in the New York hush money trial begin deliberating, they are seven minutes into this, what is that experience like being a juror on such a high-profile case.
BRAINERD: So, you sit next to these people and you have lunch with them and you joke with them for weeks and weeks of sort of camaraderie and -- but you can't talk about any of the evidence or any of the trial until you get into that deliberation room, which these people entered seven minutes ago. And I really don't envy them, because what happened was this amazing revelation of, Oh, my goodness, we don't agree at all, and the evidence that we've all been listening to, we've all processed completely differently, and we're never going to get to a verdict. I remember, in the very beginning, when it was just mayhem and emotional and people were yelling, and one of the jurors said, why don't we just call a hung jury right now?
SOLOMON: Wow. Is it an experience where you are also after weeks of sitting through testimony and evidence and lawyers are relieved to be able to finally be able to talk about your thoughts, your feelings, and just sort of even just work out all of those feelings you've had and experiences and thoughts?
BRAINERD: Well, in a way, I expected it to be more of a relief than it was, because the shock that we were on such different pages from one another really overtook the feeling of relief. And all of a sudden, I was supplanted by a feeling of dread that we would never be able to agree, and the shock that people felt so differently.
SOLOMON: Yeah. Talk to me a little bit about sort of your thoughts about this current jury. I mean, obviously, you were sitting on a jury against Harvey Weinstein, who is a famous Hollywood mogul, but these are jurors who are deciding the fate of a former American President, a President that at one point half the country essentially voted for. Talk to me sort of about just the weight of that sort of responsibility.
BRAINERD: I think it's really important, and I'm sure that the judge has charged these jurors with the same charge that we were given, which is to completely disregard who this is as a person in the outside world and only focus on this person as a citizen of the United States, who is accused of a crime in a court of law, and to only look at the evidence and not worry about the fact that he is Harvey Weinstein or Donald Trump. That really cannot come into play. And in order to be fair and impartial, which every single one of these jurors must be, you cannot think about this is so and so. It doesn't matter and it cannot matter.
SOLOMON: And then, just talk to me a little bit about, at what point -- I mean, obviously, your jury was able to reach a verdict, but you did sort of allude to at one point the disagreement perhaps that maybe it would have been a hung jury, just sort of the back and the forth and the persuading and the -- just sort of walk me through that, because most people will never sit on a high-profile trial like you did.
BRAINERD: So, in the beginning, as I mentioned, it was mayhem. And we very quickly realized that we needed some quote unquote, "law and order in the deliberation room." We did need to go back to the judge in the very beginning and have him review some of the legal -- the legalese and explain the counts. And in this case, in the Trump trial, the jury has a huge amount of evidence that's been presented to them and a lot more accounts, and I can imagine that they may need to come back to the jury -- to the judge several times for further explanation.
But, at a certain point, to more specifically answer your question, towards the end of our deliberations, we did ask the judge whether or not we could be unanimous on one of the counts and hung on to others. And he very calmly explained to us that many times juries cannot agree for many days, and sent us back into the deliberation room and demanded that we come back, however long it took, with a unanimous verdict.
SOLOMON: Fascinating.
[11:40:00]
And then, how difficult was it when you were on that jury to just even follow the judge's instructions in terms of not watching media or not talking to family about it, because these were the same instructions for this very jury?
BRAINERD: I actually really did not have a problem doing that at all. People did try to ping me all the time and say, I can't believe we're on that jury. And I just said, I'm sorry. I can't talk about it. Turning -- tuning -- first of all, the jury has a separate entrance on Center Street. So, all the media circus that's going on in front of the courthouse, they don't really have to see it. I think we all made an enormous effort to block out any kind of social media. I remember taking a taxi home one day and the taxi TV popped on with the Weinstein trial, and I quickly jabbed the off button. But, it's really important to block it out and to be able to focus.
SOLOMON: Amanda Brainerd, we appreciate your time. It was really fascinating reading your OpEd and just how seriously you took your responsibility and how the other jurors took their responsibility, and it's a responsibility that's now on the shoulders of these 12, as we wait and see. Amanda Brainerd, thank you.
BRAINERD: Thank you, Rahel.
SOLOMON: All right. We now want to get to some CNN exclusive reporting. Sources say that accusers of Sean "Diddy" Combs could soon appear before a federal grand jury. That's a signal that the U.S. Justice Department may be seeking to indict the music mogul. Since November, eight civil lawsuits have been filed against Combs, seven of them directly accusing him of sexual assault. Now, while Combs has strongly denied these claims for many of the suits, he has not responded to all of the allegations.
For more now, let's bring in CNN Entertainment Correspondent Elizabeth Wagmeister, who has been doing some really incredible reporting on this very story. She joins us from Los Angeles. Elizabeth, just first bring us up to speed with all of these new developments.
ELIZABETH WAGMEISTER, CNN ENTERTAINMENT CORRESPONDENT: Absolutely. So, Rahel, we have sources who tell us that potential witnesses have been notified that they could be called to testify in front of a federal grand jury in New York City. Now, these sources do caution that none of these potential witnesses have been prepped yet. So, it's not like this is happening tomorrow. This could still be a lengthy investigation.
We all remember back at the end of March when two of Diddy's homes in Los Angeles and Miami were raided by the feds, and that is what this is all leading into. But, this is absolutely the most significant development in this investigation, now that we know that they are preparing potentially for the grand jury. And as you said, that indicates that they could be seeking a potential indictment from Combs.
Now, the other thing that I have heard from sources is that the majority of the accusers who have filed these civil lawsuits --
SOLOMON: Elizabeth --
WAGMEISTER: -- had been questioned by these investigators.
SOLOMON: Thank you, Elizabeth. I'm going to have to jump in here. Thank you. We will have you back soon. I want to get to Donald Trump, who is speaking right now outside of the courthouse. Let's listen.
DONALD TRUMP (R), FORMER U.S. PRESIDENT AND 2024 PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: -- It's a weaponized deal for the Democrats to hit their political opponent. For Joe Biden, the worst President in the history of the United States, he is destroying our country. He is letting millions of people from jails, from prisons, from insane asylums, from mental institutions, drug dealers pour in. Venezuela, if you look at their crime statistics, they've gone down 72 percent in crime because they're releasing all their criminals into our country because of this horrible President that we have. And then they have a protest with Robert De Niro yesterday. He is a fool. He is a broken down fool, standing out there. And he got MAGA'd. He got MAGA'd yesterday. He got a big dose of it.
But, I just want to say it's a very unfair trial. It should have never happened. If it was going to happen, it should have happened seven years ago. As you know, Bragg didn't want to bring it. The Southern District didn't bring it. The FEC didn't bring it. This judge didn't even let us use the number one election attorney. He is making the rules. He doesn't know anything about elections. He doesn't know anything about voting and vote counts. He doesn't know anything about this stuff. That's not his profession. We had the leading election expert in the country, Brad Smith, ready to testify, wouldn't let him do it.
They wouldn't let another gentleman who represented, and you know very well, you saw it, it was the worst I think I've ever seen anyone treated on the stand, Bob Costello. Wouldn't let him talk about all of the hundreds of emails that he was sent by a gentleman, another gentleman, who I can't mention because I'm gagged. Every time I speak to you, you ask me simple questions. I'm not allowed to give you the answer because I'm gagged by this judge.
But, we have a very, very serious problem here. I mean, our country is going bad. And remember -- and let me just leave you with this. This is all because of Joe Biden and his -- and I don't even think it's him. I don't think he is smart enough to think about it.
[11:45:00]
But, it's the people that surround him in the office. They're smart. They're fascists. They're communists, but they're smart, and they're ruining our country.
But, we're going to win this election. November 5th is going to be the most important day in the history of our country. We're going to take back our country from these fascists and these thugs that are destroying us with inflation and with everything they do. How stupid they are, allowing 15 million, 16 million, 17 million people into our country, totally unvetted, totally unchecked. We're going to bring back our nation November 5th, remember, most important day in the history of our country. In the meantime, this trial is rigged. Thank you.
(CROSSTALK)
SOLOMON: All right. We just been listening to the former President Donald Trump there, who is of course on trial right now, as the jury is now 17 minutes into deliberations on these charges of falsifying business records just before the 2016 election. A few things we heard from Trump there. He said, I just want to say it's a very unfair trial. It should have never happened. It should have happened seven years ago. He talked about certain things. He attacked Joe Biden, of course, his challenger.
He talked about a few things that he said were quite unfair about this trial. He said Bob Costello, one of the witnesses for the defense side. Remember, the defense called two witnesses. Bob Costello was one of them. Trump said that he wouldn't, the judge, wouldn't let him talk. That is not true. Yeah. He gave testimony. He was actually reprimanded by the judge, because of at times what appeared, according to those inside of the courtroom, as a combative witness, Bob Costello there. He said -- Trump said that I'm gagged by this judge. He doesn't continue to -- he doesn't allow me to continue to speak. That's not true, obviously. He was clearly just speaking there. He continues to post, including, if I'm not mistaking, this very morning, alluding to Michael Cohen, the witness in this case.
Trump also said November 5th will be the most important day in the history of our country. Just a split screen here. Trump is obviously speaking to the cameras, to the media, to American voters. Prior to November 5th, the election, he is playing the political game, as is his right. But, inside of that courtroom, there are 12 jurors who are now 19 minutes into jury deliberations, who will decide his legal fate, as we continue to wait what they decide, who they believe.
We're going to take a quick break. We'll be right back.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
SOLOMON: Welcome back. The U.S. pharmacy and general goods store, Walgreens, is the latest of a growing number of retailers cutting prices. Yeah. Prices going down. Walgreens joins stores like Target, Walmart, and Amazon, among others, and trying to win back business from inflation-weary consumers.
[11:50:00]
Let's bring in CNN Business Reporter Nathaniel Meyersohn, who joins us now from New York to tell us why some prices are actually going down. This has to be good news to some consumers. What is getting cheaper, Nathaniel? NATHANIEL MEYERSOHN, CNN BUSINESS REPORTER: Yeah. Can you believe it, Rahel? Prices finally starting to go down on groceries and essentials. So, Walmart really kicked this off a couple of weeks ago when it said it was going to cut prices. And Walmart, of course, is the largest retailer in the U.S., really sets the tone here. Once Walmart does something, then its rivals have to follow. So, you see Target, Amazon, Walgreens, everybody is kind of jumping on this bandwagon. And some of the -- the price cuts are with groceries, some of the packaged goods, tissues, everyday essentials.
And so, we're seeing kind of slight price drops, maybe five percent, 10 percent, 15 percent, nothing really back to pre-pandemic levels. But, certainly, it's going to make it a little bit easier for folks shopping for -- parents buying stuff for their babies, things like that.
SOLOMON: Nathaniel, you don't often find companies putting down their prices. So, why are retailers doing this? What's the reason behind this?
MEYERSOHN: So, Rahel, I think there are a few different strategies going on here. And it's always interesting to try to figure out kind of what is going on behind the scenes here. I think part of the rationale is that demand has dropped off from some consumers. And so, retailers are trying to kind of pump up demand by lowering prices. It also has to do with the fact that consumers are really frustrated right now. And retailers are trying to kind of signal to consumers, hey, we get it. We know prices have gone up. So, it's a little bit of a marketing play. You have these companies putting out press releases, making these splashy announcements, try to kind of signal to customers, we're with you.
And then, it's also a supplier play. It is the retailers kind of pushing back against their suppliers, saying, hey, we need to really lower these prices for consumers, and all sorts of way to boost their private labels, the retailer's private label. Some of the prices that they're cutting are on their private label brands, their in-house brands. They are trying to move customers to these cheaper private label brands. So, a lot of different tactics at play here.
SOLOMON: OK. We'll see if it works. Nathaniel Meyersohn live for us in New York. Nathaniel, thank you.
All right. Let's see how Walgreens stock is trading right now. We'll pull it up for you. Walgreens is down 4.2 percent. Investors don't tend to like when prices go down, perhaps one reason, but you can see shares are trading right now at $14.73 a pop. I do think it's a down day more broadly, though, on Wall Street, and we can pull that up for you. Yeah. As I suspected, all three of the major averages are pretty solidly red. So, the NASDAQ, the S&P, and the Dow Jones, all off between four tenth of a percent to almost one percent for the Dow Jones, really incredible for the Dow. Just few weeks ago, we were at 40,000. We're now looking closer to 38,498 points right now.
We do have two big economic reports this week. Both tomorrow and Friday, we'll get GDP data. We'll get a PCE, some inflation data. So, we'll see how investors take in that. Let's take a look at Europe, where markets are also lower. Markets closed lower. And in Asia, markets were more so mixed there, a mixed picture there, but red pretty much across the board elsewhere.
All right. We'll take a quick break. But, still ahead, and today's one more thing, a giant announcement has been made. We will tell you where a new pair of China's pandas will be going and we'll have the cute China panda video when we come back.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[11:55:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
SOLOMON: And before we go, one more thing.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
JILL BIDEN, FIRST LADY OF THE UNITED STATES: OK. So, let's get to it.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Formal dinner or barbecue on the South Lawn?
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I don't think you want them on the South Lawn.
J. BIDEN: What about attire?
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Well, they're pretty partial to black and white.
J. BIDEN: Black tie it is then. What's on the menu?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Any diet --
(END VIDEO CLIP)
SOLOMON: The Smithsonian Zoo is preparing to welcome back a pair of giant pandas. The announcement was made in a video released on Wednesday featuring, of course, First Lady Joe Biden. The pair of two- year-old pandas are expected to arrive by the end of this year. China has also announced a loan of pandas to the San Diego and San Francisco Zoo.
All right. We know your time is money. So, thank you for spending some time with me today. I'm Rahel Solomon in New York. Stick with CNN. One World is coming up next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[12:00:00]
