Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Newsroom

CNN International: Now: Jury Deliberating In Trump Criminal Trial; White House: No U.S. Policy Changes Following Rafah Strike; Why U.S. Tanks Are Coming Up Short In Eastern Ukraine. Aired 3-4p ET

Aired May 29, 2024 - 15:00   ET

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

[15:00:29]

JIM SCIUTTO, CNN INTERNATIONAL HOST: It's 8:00 p.m. in London, 10:00 p.m. in Jerusalem, 3:00 a.m. in Beijing, 3:00 p.m. here in Washington.

I'm Jim Sciutto. Thanks so much for joining me today on CNN NEWSROOM.

And let's get right to the news.

After six weeks, the outcome in Donald Trump's criminal hush money trial is now in the hands of the jury. The seven men and five women that make up that jury in the first-ever criminal trial of a former president have now been deliberating for just over three hours.

This morning, the judge overseeing the trial, Juan Merchan, issued their final jury instructions, explaining how to handle witnesses they might not trust, also telling them they should not hold it against Trump that he refused to testify in his own defense. The former president is charged with 34 counts, felony counts of falsifying business records related to hush money payments made to the adult-film star Stormy Daniels, just days before the 2016 presidential election.

Now we wait for an historic verdict.

CNN's Jessica Schneider joins me now.

Jessica, I hear you just got a notice from the courtroom?

JESSICA SCHNEIDER, CNN JUSTICE CORRESPONDENT: Yeah. We're getting some information from the courtroom. It's been very quiet ever since 11:30, so about 3-1/2 hours now, but it appears that there has been some sort of notification in the courtroom that typically indicates that the jury wants to communicate.

SCIUTTO: Okay.

SCHNEIDER: So we're waiting for more information. It sounds like the reporters have filed back into the courtroom. Of course, they'll have to get Donald Trump and all the parties back into the courtroom. This could be a note from the jury saying we need more information. We'd likes part of the transcript read back.

SCIUTTO: Question for the judge. I mean, all these possibilities. SCHNEIDER: Exactly. I mean, or, you know, we're what, three-and-a-half

hours in, who knows? It could be a verdict, that would probably be quick.

But, yeah, we're waiting for more information that could come at any second, but that's all we know right now, is that there's a communication.

SCIUTTO: If you notice --

SCHNEIDER: I noticed when the jury --

SCIUTTO: And several possibilities from the jury.

SCHNEIDER: Exactly.

SCIUTTO: Okay.

SCHNEIDER: Yeah.

SCIUTTO: We're waiting to see what that notice is.

SCHNEIDER: Exactly.

SCIUTTO: Before we do, the last event before they went to deliberate were these jury instructions from the judge when I think close to an hour-and-a-half, biggest highlight from those instructions.

SCHNEIDER: I think the biggest highlight, a few things the jury, the judge obviously stress this needs to be unanimous. However, he talked about the fact that they need to find two different things. They need to find that there was falsification of business, right? But then they need to find that there was some underlying felony to that, whether or not --

SCIUTTO: Right, in furtherance of another crime, this phrase.

SCHNEIDER: Exactly. Whether or not it was maybe federal elections violations, tax fraud. It was interesting because while they need to be unanimous, that Trump was either guilty or not guilty, on the underlying felony. They don't need to be unanimous.

So as long as they agree that there were some underlying felony as to which one exactly it was --

SCIUTTO: I see.

SCHNEIDER: -- they don't need to be unanimous to that.

SCIUTTO: Right, it from misdemeanor to felony, you need it to be tied to another crime.

SCHNEIDER: Yes.

SCIUTTO: -- but you're saying they don't all have to agree what that particular one is. SCHNEIDER: Exactly.

So that was interesting. Also, I thought was interesting that, you know, to -- for the defense, some good jury instructions for the defense was that the judge said, you can consider Michael Cohen's credibility on the basis that he pleaded guilty to lying to Congress, so you can consider that when evaluating his credibility and also, if you find that there was a part of Michael Cohen's testimony that you don't believe, you are free to disregard all of his testimony.

So if the jurors find that there's something he may have lied about, not spoken the truth about, they can say, look, we just don't believe Michael Cohen. And, of course, anything they do believe from Michael Cohen, the judge said they have to make sure that it was also corroborated with the mountains of other evidence.

SCIUTTO: Which the prosecution made an effort to do. We'll see if the jury was convinced to that.

SCHNEIDER: Yeah.

SCIUTTO: Jessica Schneider, thanks so much. We'll see what that noticed meant.

Here to break it all down, criminal defense attorney Janet Johnson and Joey Jackson, also criminal defense attorney and former prosecutor.

Lawyers, present.

Janet, I'll start with you.

A notice from the jury to the judge could be a whole host of things after three hours of deliberation, can you walk through the most likely scenarios what that notice is?

JANET JOHNSON, CRIMINAL DEFENSE ATTORNEY: Yeah, I'm sure Joe had the same reaction. You get kind of stomach not when you think that you've been summoned to a courtroom, Joey and I have both been through that hundreds and hundreds of times. It could be lunch, you know, crave, frankly, it could be ready to break for lunch.

I would be surprised if it was a verdict. There are so many instructions. There's 55 pages to go through. Juries take this incredibly seriously. They have to vote on a foreperson and then walk through all of this evidence.

So, it's probably a question.

[15:05:00]

It's probably something like lunch. It's probably not a verdict, but I'm sure the lawyers are still stressed out. I'm sure Mr. Trump is stressed out, being summoned to him after hearing a buzzer that there's something going.

SCIUTTO: Joey, you got the same reading of this? JOEY JACKSON, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: So I do I think that what happens is, is that there is something called read back, Jim. Good to be with you and Janet.

And then read back, what occurs is that sometimes jurors just have questions. They have questions with regard to the law and may need a legal concept explained to them. They have questions with respect to a certain testimony. They may want read back as it relates to Cohen, read back as it relates to Stormy Daniels, read back as it relates to David Pecker, read back as it relates to whatever, right? Or they may just have a generic question.

And so I would be very surprised if this had anything to do with a verdict, and I would think I -- again, just my guess were reading believed that there may be many nodes that are passed out so they can parse out the specifics of the law with the law means in addition to specific facts and what they need clarification on.

SCIUTTO: Okay. We've read that signal and, of course, we'll keep on top of what we hear regarding that note. Now let's go to some of the specific jury instructions given by the judge this morning.

Janet, I wanted to read one expert excerpt from those instructions, quote, you must find beyond a reasonable doubt, first that he -- that is the defendant -- solicited, requested, commanded importune 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, the extent or degree of defendant's participation in the crime does not matter.

Can you explain, Janet, what is the significance of that saying, find beyond a reasonable doubt, in effect, that he was involved, but degree of involvement is not a barrier to a -- to a conviction in a fact? What's the significance and is that standard?

JOHNSON: Yeah, it's standard. And as defense attorney, you know, you're -- one of the arguments were heard was what he didn't do this. It wasn't his action that caused this to happen. If anyone did it, it's Michael Cohen.

The example I always use is Charles Mason, you know, he didn't kill anybody, right? Charles Manson rather, he said do something witchy, and the followers went out and committed all these atrocious crimes. It's enough to cause it to happen. He doesn't have to have done all of the steps where it happened.

So the judge is just basically doesn't want the jury to be confused and because he didn't personally give the checks to Stormy Daniels or he's not accused of even necessarily brokering this deal, it is enough that Michael Cohen did these things on his behalf and add his direction, and that Trump had some involvement. But he doesn't have to have completed the act. And I think that, you know, that's a bad instruction for the defense, but it is a standard instruction.

SCIUTTO: Joey, another instruction that Jessica highlighted a short time ago that the jury, the judge, said must be unanimous, but one does not need to be unanimous on which further crime the defendant allegedly committed to raise this from a misdemeanor to a felony. There are several options that I understand it.

He also said jurors do not need to be unanimous on quote, whether the defendant committed the crime personally or acted in concert with another or both.

Explain that because I -- you know, my layman's impression was that the jury has to be 100 percent unanimous on everything. Is this standard instruction and what's a significance of those -- significance of those specific instructions?

JACKSON: Yes. So that's problematic for a couple of reasons. First, let's talk about reasonable doubt and unanimous juries, right? They're certainly instructed as to reasonable doubt and what that means, it doesn't mean doubt as to a mathematical certainty. It means a doubt which could be reasonable, prudent based upon the facts given.

It -- and then you pivot to the issue of unanimous. That means that any event one or more jurors hold out. You're not unanimous. It's a mistrial, meaning you have to do it all over again.

The thing that concerns me and I think will be an appealable issue relates to the other crime, right? Now, you can find all of you collectively that Mr. Trump was involved in the fraud of the ledgers of the invoices of the checks and that would be a misdemeanor falsifying business records. It elevates the felony, Jim, because you find that it was in right? It was in a conspiracy or not conspiracy, but you were concealing some other crime.

And the fact that you don't have to be unanimous on what that other crime is I think troubles me a lot. And I think what also troubles me also, an appealable issue for sure, we're going to see, is this other crime. It was sort of a mystery throughout the trial, is it a tax crime? Is that a campaign finance crime? Is it an election crime?

And so, as a defense attorney, you just want to know, notice due process, notes and opportunity to be heard. And so that is a little troubling to the extent that everything you should be unanimous on, but to be able to say, well, some of us think it was a tax crime. Okay, he's guilty. Some of us think it was a campaign violation, okay, he's guilty. Some of us think maybe it's an election interference, that's troubling and will be for sure brought to an appellate court should there be a conviction.

SCIUTTO: That video you just been watching on the screen was from moments ago as Trump and some of his staff and attorneys filed back in the courtroom as a result of the jury ringing the court to say they have some notice to the court as we await for details, about exactly what their question is or update.

[15:10:14]

Jessica Schneider highlighted that the judge also said, Janet Johnson, that with Cohen in terms of his credibility, and I imagine this applies to any witness, you can conceivably conclude if you don't trust what he said in one instance, you don't have to trust anything he says. My understanding is that the flip side is also true, right? That you could believe something, but it's not something else.

I'm just curious. Is that a standard instruction from a judge regarding a witness?

JOHNSON: It is. And it's not as ominous are significant as you think. I mean, in this case, everybody sort of assumed because Cohen is a convicted liar. I mean, that is a fact that it was going to be problematic and maybe it is, but I think obviously he's been to prison for lying and the state made the point. He doesn't want to go back there and his motivation patient back then was to lie for Trump. He doesn't have a motivation now to lie against Trump.

And juries have that certain instruction all the time. You can believe all part or none of any witnesses testimony, and I just think that a jury isn't going to think, well, you know, he lied about things back in front of Congress about Russia, well, I think he's lying about this recorded conversation, or I think he's lying about the conversation that he had with Trump, but that was during an event that was 90 seconds long.

They are going to parse apart what they do and don't believe and we have two lawyers on the jury. And they know that. And I think it comes down to instructions they're going to go through that with the jurors.

SCIUTTO: Okay. Janet, standby, because as you could see on our screen, there, we now know what the jury rang, the court about. The court has received a note.

I'm going to go to Jessica Schneider, who's next to me here. If I have this right, that means not a verdict, but a question or some other piece of information.

SCHNEIDER: Exactly. This is the jury saying we have a question. We need some sort of clarification.

So what you saw in that video was all of the parties assembling back into the courtroom. Donald Trump, we saw him give a little fist bump, the defense team, the prosecution, they're all in the courtroom right now. And apparently, we're getting more information. The note contains four requests. The first one is they request David Peckers testimony regarding the phone conversation with Donald Trump while Pecker was in the investor meeting.

And so, there are four requests. The first one being they want to read back of testimony from David Pecker relating to this specific conversation he had with Donald Trump. Apparently, there are also three more requests which were waiting for from the courtroom, from our reporters inside.

And interestingly, Jim, I mean, this process takes a long time. When you want to read back a testimony, they have to bring the juries, jurors back into the courtroom. They have to get the court reporter who will read a specific part of the transcript.

So this actually -- it holds the deliberation process. It takes a little while.

SCIUTTO: Let me just do this particular phone call. Do you know the details of this phone call? Pecker testimony? That's about his phone call with Trump.

SCHNEIDER: You know, I'm having a little trouble deciphering from the actual notes we're getting from our reporters, you know, regarding a phone conversation with Donald Trump while Pecker was in the inventor meeting?

SCIUTTO: OK.

SCHNEIDER: I guess that's a -- that could be the Trump tower meeting yes, because -- okay.

The other requests we're seeing is that they want the Pecker testimony about the Trump Tower meeting.

SCIUTTO: Okay.

SCHNEIDER: They want the Cohen's testimony about the Trump Tower meeting. Remember this was the meeting where as Trump was getting into the thick of his campaign, the three of them gathered David Pecker agreed, yes, we're going to do everything we can, Donald Trump, to promote positive stories of view on the "National Enquirer" and then to bury negative stories.

SCIUTTO: So, that's notable, and I want to go back to our lawyers, Joey and Janet.

Joey that strikes me is notable because this is a piece of the prosecutors' case here not dependent on Michael Cohen, right? And it goes to the pattern that they argued existed, that there was this meeting, Pecker, Cohen, Trump, in which they made a plan, a strategy and effect to kill stories, right? As they're in the midst, the heat of the campaign.

Listen, it's a jury, 12 people, all people are different, all juries are different. But can you glean some significance from questions about that particular testimony?

JACKSON: So, you can, Jim, I think you have your hand on the pulse, quite frankly, I think they're focusing in on honing in on the theory that the prosecution laid out. What was that? This was a bad conspiracy and a cover-up.

Well, there was a conspiracy, not that that was charged with -- conspiracy, meaning two or more people entering into an agreement for illegality. But that's their theory, that there was this gathering and get together with respect to doing things that were favorable to Mr. Trump, like what?

[15:15:00]

Like catching these stories and killing them, caching stories that were unfavorable and making sure they didn't see the light of day. Well, who was at that meeting? When did the meeting take place? What

did it involve? What were the circumstances? What was the context?

(CROSSTALK)

SCIUTTO: What was Trump's involvement, right? Like, what was Trump's -- because that gets to the core, right, that he was directing this thing. That's notable.

And I believe, Jessica, just want to go back to Jessica because I'm trying to follow as I'm listening to your wise analysis there, Joey, but it seems like all four requests relate to that Trump Tower meeting. Is that correct?

SCHNEIDER: No.

SCIUTTO: OK.

SCHNEIDER: Actually, so two of the requests relate to the Trump Tower meeting. The Cohen testimony about that meeting --

SCIUTTO: OK, got it.

SCHNEIDER: -- the David Pecker testimony, there are two other requests. They want to hear David Pecker's testimony, read back about his decision not to finalize and fund the assignment of when they were going to take the life rights of Karen McDougal's story. So when they were essentially going to silence her for -- her lifetime, so she couldn't go public with her story.

And remember, the "National Enquirer", they either did end up doing that or they decided not to extend the life rights and then she was free to talk at a certain point.

SCIUTTO: OK.

SCHNEIDER: So that's an interesting thing that the jury wants to hear. They want to hear more about the hush money scheme as it relates to Karen McDougal who isn't even a part of these targets?

SCIUTTO: Both other requests are about McDougal decision-making?

SCHNEIDER: And the first request is about another conversation that David Pecker had with Donald Trump unrelated to the Trump Tower meeting.

SCIUTTO: Okay.

SCHNEIDER: So they want four pieces of transcript read back. That is going to take a long amount of time.

SCIUTTO: Janet, I wonder I already asked you this question. So you've got two questions about Trump Tower meeting one about the life rights to Karen McDougal, which was another case. I think we can correctly say that the prosecution was arguing was under this broader strategy or pattern of behavior to kill stories so as not to harm Donald Trump's election chances. Plus another phone call we should get some more details on that.

But do you share Joey's view that that shows the jury, we don't think it aside on this, but at least interested in this pattern which we should say is at the core of the prosecutor -- prosecutor's case?

JOHNSON: Yeah, exactly. It's a modus operandi of Trump's. It doesn't involve Cohen and I thought it was very smart that the prosecution put on all this McDougal testimony because first of all, it shows the pattern of his behavior in terms of philandering essentially, and it was really bad character evidence that would not otherwise have been admissible. But it also shows he was in the room where it happened directly on phone calls in meetings, trying to quash all of these things that he thought were going to hurt him for the election.

Now, as a defense attorney, I would object to reading back just parts of the transcript, by the way, and sometimes judges will side with us when we object because it really highlights certain things that we don't want highlighted as a defense attorney, and we would have the judge said you have to rely on your memory.

I don't think the judge will do that, but I think the defense will try to stop him from reading all of that back.

SCIUTTO: Yeah. Trump in the room where it happened, not quite Hamiltonian affair that we're discussing here. But, Joey, connect those dots for us to some degree. Let's say you were Trump's defense attorney right now. You are hearing these questions. You're like, wow, that's what they want to hear more about.

What would that make you think right now?

JACKSON: So, it's concerning, right? Because it means that the jurors are focusing on the theory of the prosecution, which is again the conspiracy and cover-up, conspiracy and cover-up. You say things enough, they resonate.

What was the conspiracy again, two or more people involved in something illegal? What was illegal? Getting this agreement together to subvert the election. How are they subverting it? Well, they were paying Stormy Daniels and they were paying her off not to tell her story.

Well, what does that do? It takes information out of voters. Well, when did that take place? It took place early on.

Well, what was that early on? It was with David Pecker. Who's David Pecker? He's the "National Enquirer" guy.

When did the meeting take place? Who was at the meeting? So these are all things that go to the core issue, which is the conspiracy, and I'd be concerned, but again, it could be one juror that has a concern, doesn't necessarily mean many share that concern. Everyone's concerns have to be allayed and satisfied on that jury. But that'd be a conviction.

SCIUTTO: I think we can safely say not insignificant questions from the jury for them, little under four hours so the deliberations and as we were just noting there, if you're just joining us, relating to two of them to a Trump tower meeting in which prosecutors alleged Pecker and Donald Trump and Michael Cohen discussed a plan to catch and kill stories in effect that might damage has election chances, as well as other related questions.

Before we go, Jessica Schneider, walk us through what happens now because you've got to bring the jury back in. The judge in defendant lawyers, et cetera. Then they got to start reading the stuff back.

I mean, this is --

SCHNEIDER: Exactly.

SCIUTTO: -- does that take some time?

SCHNEIDER: Yeah. So the judge has said at this point, he will bring the jury plus the six alternates into the courtroom to hear the read back, the judge has left the courtroom from now. He said he will wait until the jury is ready to come in. They'll bring the jury in, and then presumably they'll start reading the transcript and the order it was requested.

[15:20:05]

So that would be the David Pecker phone call with Donald Trump after some investor meeting.

SCIUTTO: Is that hours of testimony, minutes of testimony? We don't know what sections because these guys -- some of these guys were on the stand for a long time.

SCHNEIDER: Very long time. It's going to be interesting, too, you know, if there are any defense objections to what's being read or how much of it is being read, that's probably going to get hammered out very shortly.

What's interesting is were going up against about an hour until these jurors are set to be dismissed, will see if the judge may be a little bit longer today, but its a lot of testimony to be read back. They've got four different parts of this and I do think its interesting because they, it seems like they are addressing right now those underlying crimes.

Whether or not this was some sort of federal election violation with the campaign contributions potentially from David Pecker and sort of the agreement to, will buy off some of these people to help your campaign. So that's what they seem to be focusing in on at least at this point.

SCIUTTO: Of course, we don't know what they're going to do with that, but notable questions.

Jessica Schneider, also our thanks to Joey Jackson and Janet Johnson. We'll keep you updated. When we do come back, a CNN analysis finds that U.S. weapons were used

by Israeli forces in a deadly Israeli strike on Rafah. The international fallout and increasing pressure not just on Israel, but on President Biden. That's coming up.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

SCIUTTO: Welcome back.

A CNN analysis has found that weapons Israel used in the deadly strike on a displacement camp in Rafah this week were made in the United States. Serial numbers on the remnants match those for a manufacturer of high precision munitions, one that is based in California. They were not part of America's paused shipments of bombs early this month.

But when asked today, U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken would not confirm exactly which weapons Israel used.

[15:25:06]

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

ANTONY BLINKEN, U.S. SECRETARY OF STATE: We've heard from the Israelis, but again, absence a complete investigation. I can't verify any of this that small diameter weapons were used in a targeted fashion to go after specific terrorist leaders of Hamas. Again, I can't vouch for that in this moment. We have to see what the investigation shows.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SCIUTTO: The IDF has said the strike use the smallest munitions which their jets could fire, and those munitions alone could not have ignited the fire, which followed. That's Israel's explanation, at least 45 people were killed, more than 200 injured in that attack on Sunday. Most of them, women and children.

Today, Israel's head of national security said to expect going forward another seven months of fighting.

For more on what this all means, I want to bring in former Middle East negotiator for the State Department, Aaron David Miller.

Good to have you, Aaron.

I mean, listen, I -- I imagine Israel is going to say, you said don't use big weapons there, and that is something. President Biden said these 2,000-pound bombs that have caused so much collateral damage, that is civilians. So they use smaller diameter weapons here, but you still have civilian casualties.

On the flip side, I imagine Israel's critics would say, well, that shows the issue with attacking Rafah. It's so concentrated with civilians, it's hard not to fire into there without having significant civilian life. I mean, what's your best read of this particular situation. AARON DAVID MILLER, FORMER MIDDLE EAST NEGOTIATOR: I mean, all of this is true, Jim. If you -- if you look at the exact words that the president use this network on May 8 and this isn't surprising. Sometimes the president isn't -- isn't that specific or his language is vague. It could mean anything.

Don't go into Rafah. I'm not going to supply you the weapons that you historically use in these cities, which suggests 2,000-pound, 500- pound bombs, which Israelis have used in northern and central Gaza and I think -- that I think misses the point.

I think in the end, nine months into this war, and next week, it'll be nine months. I think it should be clear to anyone, but the consistently that this president is not looking for a major confrontation with the Israeli government (ph).

He doesn't want it because it's awkward and politically costly. He doesn't want it because he's emotionally tethered to Israel's prosecution of this war against Hamas, a terror organization which holds hostages, including Americans and abuses them. He doesn't want it because its bad politics on the Republican side.

But the -- it's the last reason that I'm questioning. He doesn't want it because internally, the administration believes that the only way to de-escalate disorder are have a chance to do is an Israeli-Hamas deal.

SCIUTTO: Right.

MILLER: Which free some hostages, gets a temporary ceasefire for six weeks, and offers the administration maybe the chance to break the battlefield dynamic -- can't go back to the war after there's a serious ceasefire for six to eight weeks. That's the logic and to do that, you need Hamas's ascent unfortunately. You also need the ascent of this Israeli government.

And a sustained confrontation with Netanyahu, I think the administration, I think Tony Blinken, I think Jake Sullivan, I think there's enormous frustration, even anger, but I think they look at is sustained breach with Netanyahu and maybe it should come, maybe the U.S. should use the leverage at its disposal. Their view is that that's a dead end street, that they'll never get out of this war.

SCIUTTO: The trouble is, right, you've created in the friendliest terms possible uncertainty as to exactly what your red line is. And I'm speaking about the administration here.

Let me play what John Kirby said yesterday the White House press briefing, when asked about this.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REPORTER: How does this not violate the red line the e president laid out?

JOHN KIRBY, NATIONAL SECURITY COUNCIL COORDINATOR FOR STRATEGIC COMMUNICATION: As I said, we don't want to see a major ground operation. We haven't seen that at this point.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SCIUTTO: What is a major ground operation, you know? I know the administration as well does not want major civilian casualties, is 45 and 200 -- well, more than 45, 45 killed, 200, 200 injured in this latest attack. Is that not significant?

I mean, they can't define their own terms as far as I could tell.

MILLER: No. I mean, that's morally and ethically repugnant to try to set some sort of level in terms of Palestinian deaths as to what's acceptable and what isn't acceptable.

[15:30:02]

You know, the Israelis, what, deployed 50,000, 60,000 forces in their initial ground campaign that began in late October. What do they down to now, 5,000, 6,000, 7,000? I think they're talking about avoiding a massive ground operation in Rafah.

But, you're right. The fact is innocent Palestinians are dying. But again, I have to say nine months into the war, the administration has levers at its disposal to use. They could have restricted, seriously restricted the flow of munitions to Israel, haven't done that.

They could have introduced a U.N. Security Council resolution or voted for someone else's critical of Israel, haven't done that. They could abandon Israeli-Hamas negotiations, and join the international community that wants a ceasefire, period, and they haven't done that.

So, a normal human would conclude at the end of all this, that there are reasons that this administration, this president doesn't want a major sustained breach with Israeli prime minister. So red lines when it comes to the U.S.-Israeli relations, Jim, you know, this is well as I, somehow always have a way of turning pink.

SCIUTTO: Yeah, long history there.

Aaron David Miller, always good to have your expertise.

MILLER: Thanks for having me, Jim.

SCIUTTO: When we do come back, back to the campaign trail, counter- programming on the campaign trail.

While Trump and the country awaits a verdict in New York, President Biden is hitting the trail in Philadelphia, a place where he thinks he needs to be. That's coming up.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[15:35:12]

SCIUTTO: All right. So while 12 jurors in New York currently deliberating on Donald Trump's legal fate, his political fate will come down to another narrow set of American spread out across a handful of swing states across the U.S.

And today, President Biden and Vice President Kamala Harris are in one of those battleground states, Pennsylvania.

CNN's Kevin Liptak is there traveling with president. He joins me now.

Kevin, the president on the trail at the same time. Of course, a jury is weighing whether to convict Trump on 34 felonies. Of course, Trump has parading in and out of the courtroom as the jury sends notes, deliberates, et cetera.

Is this a deliberate effort by the Biden campaign to put him out on the trail talking to him Americans, while Trump is there in the courtroom?

KEVIN LIPTAK, CNN SENIOR WHITE HOUSE REPORTER: Yeah. I think yes and no. I think when you talk to Biden campaign officials, their view of this is that the pros, former presidents trial isn't going to be what determines this election, whether he's convicted or whether he's acquitted. They don't necessarily think that voters are going to make their decision based on his fate there.

And President Biden's real goal when he was in Philadelphia today was to rally a very specific slice of the electorate, Black voters, who helped propel him to the White House in 2020. But polls show now a wavering in their support. And I think when you talked to the Biden people, they really are looking at two facts here.

One, the Black vote was absolutely critical in states like Pennsylvania where the margins were so slim back in 2020, and two, that those voters aren't necessarily going to vote for him assuredly this time around. And that's why you hear them saying that they're not going to take any vote for granted, that they are going to come to states like this. And we are at a majority black prep school where the president spoke earlier.

And his message I think broke down into two areas. One was trying did you really reaffirm his own record when it comes to Black Americans, whether it's student debt relief, whether it's pardoning, convictions of federal marijuana offenses, and the other slice is trying to warn about what might happen if Trump were to regain the presidency.

Listen to a little bit of what he said on that front.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JOE BIDEN, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: Now, he's running again and he's clearly unhinged. He calls insurrectionists who stormed the Capitol patriots, patriots. If reelected, he wants to pardon, quote, every one of them. Let me ask you, what do you think he would have done on January 6 if Black Americans have stormed -- think about this -- what do you think would happen if Black Americans have stormed the Capitol? I don't think he'd be talking about pardons.

(END VIDEO CLIP) LIPTAK: You know, I think the fear among Biden allies is not necessarily that Black voters will turn to President Trump, but that they will sit the election out entirely. That would be very bad news when an election is going to be this close. And I think that's why you see the president and his team really trying to counter some of the dissatisfaction that the Trump campaign is looking to take advantage of -- Jim.

SCIUTTO: Yeah. That was quite a pointed line from the president there saying, imagine what Trump could do had those rioters been Black.

Kevin Liptak, thanks so much.

With me now to discuss all this, Sophia Cai of "Axios".

Good to have you on.

First, let's talk about why Biden is in Philadelphia, right? I mean, because polling has shown some voters -- Black voters, in particular, at least curious about Trump campaign and even -- even saying they're going to vote for him in a way that would be disastrous for Biden because he needs not just -- you know, he needs -- close to 90 percent support, right, to have a chance of winning.

SOPHIA CAI, NATIONAL POLITICS REPORTER, AXIOS: Yeah.

SCIUTTO: And you went -- you went to this rally in the Bronx. And I wondered, did you -- did you see there support among Black voters for Trump? And when you speak to the Biden campaign, how concerned or are they about a loss of support among Black voters?

CAI: So the bigger picture is that both campaigns right now are trying to make sure that this sum 46 percent of the electorate turns out and a big part of that for Biden are Black voters. When I was in the Bronx, I did hear from some voters who were -- let's just call them Trump curious.

SCIUTTO: Yeah.

CAI: They may have voted for Biden the past. They may have not voted, but, you know, they very curious that Trump came to the Bronx. And so, a part of why Biden is in Philadelphia today is to say, I'm here for you. I've been here for you and hear the tangible things that I've done. And, no, by the way, here's some hypotheticals, what if President Trump had reacted to, you know, Black -- Black peoples storming the Capitol, what would that look like?

So I think its very strong argument and I think it's also in reaction to some of these moves that Trump has been making in places like Philly, in places like Atlanta, in places like Detroit and Milwaukee.

[15:40:06]

SCIUTTO: It's really, of course, we know they have their own internal polling. They don't always share it with us, except the good stuff, right, in general. But do you have any sense speaking to the Biden campaign that they feel they're making any progress with those voters who, if not expressing outright support for Trump, or at least as you say, curious about a Trump reelection.

CAI: Yeah. So, I think publicly the numbers that they put out there, something like 20 to 30 percent of Black voters could support Trump. I think that's unrealistic and I think they know that, but their calculus is this. They're counting on making, you know, gains of a couple of percentage points in cities like Philly, like Detroit, and they're counting on those gains to offset some of the losses in the suburbs that they've been having over the past for six years with more college educated voters. So that's kind of the campaign calculus that they're making.

SCIUTTO: And that's because what you're saying is, in effect, they've got a gain among those voters. They can't just limit their losses among those voters. Are they seeing a loss in the suburbs even among women? Because we talk a lot about that classic suburban women voter and you hear a lot of Democratic assumptions that reproductive rights, in particular will drive those voters back to the Democratic Party.

CAI: Yeah, I mean, to be clear, I think that was the calculus the Trump campaign was making. I think the Biden campaign, you keep hearing them talk about abortion because they know that that's, you know, one of the best winning issues for them.

SCIUTTO: Got it. Understood.

Oh, wait, sorry, I misunderstood you. You said the Trump campaign is hoping to get a little bit in the cities to offset what they're losing in suburbs.

CAI: Yes, exactly, yeah.

SCIUTTO: My mistake. Biden is, of course, worried just broader national trend lines of Black voters and even Hispanic voters as well.

Sophia Cai, thanks so much as always.

CAI: Thanks, Jim.

SCIUTTO: Still to come, three European nations are pushing for a new tactic in Russia's war on Ukraine, and that is a green light for Ukrainian forces to use Western-backed weapons on targets inside of Russia. How will Ukraine's biggest backer, the U.S. respond? It still won't allow it. That story is coming up.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[15:45:20]

SCIUTTO: Three European nations, NATO allies as well, France, Germany, and Poland now say Ukraine should be able to strike targets inside Russia which Russia uses to attack Ukrainian territory. But Russian President Vladimir Putin is warning that any strike inside Russia would lead to serious consequences. United States, which is the largest arms supplier to Ukraine, does not

currently support Kyiv using U.S.-made weapons inside Russian territory.

On Ukraine's eastern front, Ukrainian forces working with those U.S.- supplied Abrams tanks tell CNN the tanks have a series of weaknesses and flaws that make them easier targets for Russian strikes, particularly drones.

CNN's Nick Paton Wolf -- Walsh has an exclusive report. Have a look.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

NICK PATON WALSH, CNN CHIEF INTERNATIONAL SECURITY CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): They hide feverishly as they're a prime target for Russian missiles.

But if Moscow knew the trouble these U.S.-supplied Abrams tanks are causing Ukraine, they might not bother. Let them keep them. The M1 Abrams, America's main battle tank, a veteran of fighting Saddam in Iraq and desert insurgence. But muddy Ukrainian fields and $500 attack drones? Not so much.

That was such a fast around whether Ukraine would get these, but from the moment the decision was made, yes, through the training, through the time it took to get to the front frontline, the war has enormously changed.

All 31 America gave are now in one area in the east where Ukraine is losing ground training in Germany, the interior in Ukrainian. And while there is gratitude for all U.S. help, they can't pretend this is working.

"JOKER", UKRAINIAN 47TH MECHANIZED BRIGADE: Its armor is not sufficient for this era. It doesn't protect the crew. For real, today it's a war of drones. So now when the tank rolls out, they always try to hi it. Number one target.

"DNIPRO", UKRAINIAN 47TH MECHANIZED BRIGADE: On the battlefield, without defense, the crew doesn't survive.

WALSH: They've learned the hardest way here in the pitched battle for the city of Avdiivka, one of their drivers lost a leg recently.

Off-camera, they show us how they're adding active armor plates on themselves, then there were the shelves not enough of the wrong type for the wrong sort of fight.

JOKER: We have ammunition for direct tank to tank battle. Much more often we work as artillery. We take apart a treeline or a building. Once we fired 17 rounds into a house and it was still standing.

WALSH: Better than Soviet tanks, they still say, even though this one fresh from Poland is already broken down, condensation can fry the electrics, they also say, really, this is a solid gold wrench of a gift. This is a tank for a kind of war NATO would only fight backed by huge artillery and airpower. They're being asked to do things NATO never would.

DNIPRO: They would never do it. Aviation, artillery, then the tanks enter. And infantry. Call the aviation, call the artillery. We have no aviation and artillery. We have only tank. And it's a problem.

WALSH: One Abrams was captured and paraded in Red Square recently. The crew here joked, at least the Russians managed to tow it away. They've been struggling because these are so heavy.

This threadbare army losing ground. Perhaps wish they'd got a gift receipt.

If you could ask Americans for one thing now, what would you ask for?

DNIPRO: Why is this taking so long and why it comes partially? We are losing time. It's death to us.

WALSH: Machines built at the peak of American hyper power decades ago sent half-heartedly, it seems to hold back a fast changing world.

Nick Paton Walsh, CNN, eastern Ukraine.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

SCIUTTO: Thanks to Nick Paton Walsh for that report.

Joining me now to discuss, retired Army Lieutenant General Ben Hodges, previously served as commander of U.S. Army Forces in Europe.

Good to have you on, sir. Thanks for taking the time.

LT. GEN. BEN HODGES (RET.), FORMER COMMANDER OF U.S. ARMY FORCES IN EUROPE: Thank you, Jim.

SCIUTTO: So first lets start with the point made by that Ukrainian soldier at the end of the piece that the weapons are still coming too slowly. Is that still the case, the U.S. did finally pass this aid after many months of delay due to Republican opposition in the House, I've been told by many that they are rushing it in as fast as possible.

Is it just a matter of time now before the crucial aid gets to where it needs to be?

[15:50:05]

HODGES: Well, Jim, actually that young sergeant, what he said is true that it's not enough and it's coming too slow. And this is a reflection on the failure of the administration to clearly define a strategic outcome, you know, and that we want Ukraine to win. If they were to do that, then all of the problems with the incremental decision-making and dribs and drabs, of things showing up, that would be over. And also the president should be able to talk to the American people and explain why its an, our interests that Ukraine wins. None of that's happened. And so, one of the outcomes when you don't have a clearly defined objective is you get bad policy and incremental decision-making.

SCIUTTO: Well, let me ask you about that because there's a strategic question, then there's a tactical one. On the tactical side, I've heard for months now that the U.S. and its partners tried to turn Ukrainian forces into a NATO style force, with things like Abrams tanks and so on, but that Ukrainians pushing back, that they're fighting it to some degree in an old soul Soviet style way, which is the way Russia is fighting it, massive artillery bombardment in both directions, is -- has that tactical approach changed?

In other words, is the U.S. now supporting the Ukrainian forces with the right weapons to fight the war that way or is there still a kind of fundamental disagreement there?

HODGES: Well, look again, that's sergeant was dead on. He knows that whenever American or British or German troops would be put into a fight, we would do it after we had already achieved air superiority with the world's greatest air force and we would have engineers and attack aviation, all of these things. There's no one platform or weapons system that's magic by itself. It's a system that, of course, trained.

And I think -- I didn't like it when I heard last year, there were people from the Pentagon saying, well, Ukrainians didn't do it like we told them to, we would've never said American troops and like that.

SCIUTTO: Okay, lets talk then about this question, which there was now disagreement at the highest levels of NATO, because you have France, Germany, and Poland all saying, okay, you can use our weapons to strike Russian forces inside Russian territory because let's be clear, those Russian forces are using those positions officials inside Russian territory to carry out deadly attacks inside Ukraine.

The U.S. is still refusing to go that far, although it seems when you listen to the secretary of state that there's at least discussion underway.

Should the U.S. lift that restriction?

HODGES: Yeah, absolutely. There is no legal, moral, or military reason to have that restriction in place. Zero.

And again, that decision probably will be made and we'll all be happy, right.

But it's like months after it should have been made. This is this can content continued incremental decision-making that cost thousands of lives and delays us ever helping Ukraine defeat Russia. And again, it's in our strategic interests.

Look, if -- if the Ukrainians are not able to strike targets inside Russia that are legitimate targets like mass infantry, or logistics that are supporting the attacks against Kharkiv or missile launching or airfields that are killing innocent Ukrainian people, this is going to continue.

So I think President Macron and other European leaders have it right here.

SCIUTTO: Lieutenant General Ben Hodges, thanks so much for joining.

HODGES: Thank you, Jim.

SCIUTTO: And we'll be right back after a short break with more news.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[15:56:27]

SCIUTTO: It's now been more than four hours since the jury began deliberating in Donald Trump's historic criminal hush money trial, four hours, 28 minutes.

And we just got word that the jury sounded the buzzer a second time. A notice or note as its called, this comes after the panel of 12 New Yorkers sent its first note to the judge earlier. It asked to hear some specific sections of testimony -- again, four of them. That request centered on testimony from David Pecker, the former publisher of the "National Enquirer" and Michael Cohen, Trump's former lawyer and former fixer, specifically related to a Trump Tower meeting in which prosecutors alleged they discussed a plan to pay for and kill stories, including that related to Stormy Daniels.

Trump continues to stand by at the courthouse as the jurors consider those 34 felony charges against him. We should note, of course, he has pleaded not guilty to those allegations which involve falsifying business records related to hush money -- a hush money payment to adult film star Stormy Daniels just before the 2016 presidential election.

We're going to keep you posted as the jury continues to ask questions. Stay tuned.

Thanks so much for joining me today. I'm Jim Sciutto in Washington.

"QUEST MEANS BUSINESS" is up next.