Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Newsroom

CNN International: Jury Deliberations Continue In Trump Hush Money Trial; Bodies Of U.S. Missionaries Killed In Haiti Return Home; Democracy Leaders Convicted In Landmark National Security Case; Trump's Campaign Denies He Used N-Word On 2004 "Apprentice" Set; Blinken Meets With NATO Foreign Ministers In Czech Capital; Celebrities Wrestle With 2024 Endorsements In Polarized Climate. Aired 3-4p ET

Aired May 30, 2024 - 15:00   ET

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

[15:00:38]

JIM SCIUTTO, CNN INTERNATIONAL HOST: It's 8:00 p.m. in London, 10:00 p.m. in Kyiv, 3:00 a.m. in Hong Kong, 3:00 p.m. here in Washington. I'm Jim Sciutto. Thanks so much for joining me today on CNN NEWSROOM.

Now let's get right to the news.

For more than ten hours, 12 ordinary New Yorkers have been deliberating as they decide the legal fate of former President Donald Trump.

This morning, at the jury's request, key testimony from "National Enquirer" publisher David Pecker, and Trump's former lawyer and fixer, Michael Cohen was re-read in the courtroom.

The judge in the case, Juan Merchan, also read back parts of his instructions to the jury, ever since the jury sounded the buzzer this time yesterday as they do when they have questions or requests, their request to re-hear testimony, jury instructions have been heavily scrutinized. Why do they want in particular, that testimony from Pecker and Cohen again is as good or bad for the prosecution just when, of course, will they deliver a verdict?

We don't know the answers to those questions. We do know what the questions are and what the answers were to at least their requests for particular testimony and instructions.

Jessica Schneider joins me now.

So, Jessica, a section of the jury instructions focusing on what in particular?

JESSICA SCHNEIDER, CNN JUSTICE CORRESPONDENT: Is focusing on actually many different points, they talked about -- they wanted to know more about the burden of proof. They wanted to know about what you can infer from certain testimony. They wanted to know about the credibility of witnesses, in particular David Pecker. He signed a non- prosecution agreement. What they could infer from that. Michael Cohen pleading guilty, what they could infer from that. I mean, I think what this read back this initial -- these two initial

notes from the jury and the read back that happened this morning. I think it just shows you how complicated of a taste this is. This was a lot of information over the course of five weeks given to this jury and the way they have to break it down based on these jury instructions is they have to find that, there was this falsification of business records, whether or not Donald Trump directed it or was at least a part of it.

That's the first part. And then they have to say but he did that in part with the intent to commit another crime --

SCIUTTO: Which is to unduly influence the election.

SCHNEIDER: Exactly. And then by unduly influencing the election, they could find he did it any number of ways by violating federal election law, also violating tax laws. So there are a lot of layers to this case. And it seems that because these jurors seemed very engaged, very smart, it seems that they are going through this very methodically and trying to do everything by the book and checking off all the boxes.

SCIUTTO: Which is, by the way, what you'd like them to do, right?

SCHNEIDER: Very true, yeah.

SCIUTTO: Follow the law and be --and be quite detail-oriented.

Jessica Schneider, thanks so much for joining us.

Now for some legal analysis, criminal defense attorney, former prosecutor Joey Jackson, and attorney jury consultant Linda Moreno.

Good to have you both on.

So I want to read first the sections of testimony that was re-read back to the jurors today. A piece of testimony from David Pecker and a piece of testimony from Michael Cohen first, and we can put this up on the screen.

This from David Pecker, asked, why did you reach out to Michael Cohen when you learn that Stormy Daniels had a story involving sexual fidelity with Mr. Trump? The answer: Based on our mutual agreement back in August 2015, any stories concerning Mr. Trump? There would be very embarrassing.

They immediately then heard testimony on the same topic from Michael Cohen. Question, was there anything else that Mr. Pecker said he could also do for Mr. Trump's candidacy? Yeah was the answer. What, in substance, did he say? What he said was that he could keep an eye out for anything negative about Mr. Trump and that he would be able to help us to know in advance what was coming out and try to stop it from coming out.

Notably when the witnesses delivered that testimony, Joey Jackson, they were days apart now, the jurors are hearing them together and both tell a similar story of an agreement during the campaign to catch and kill stories. And I wonder the significance in your view of the jury focusing on those two pieces of testimony?

JOEY JACKSON, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: Yeah, Jim, I think that significant certainly goes to the core issue narrative and theory of the prosecutor. This is about a conspiracy and a cover-up.

[15:05:03]

Why is that important? No conspiracy in and of itself is not charged, but the essence of what they were doing, who's they? They being Mr. Trump himself with Michael Cohen, with Mr. Pecker, what were they doing? What they were doing was they were engaged in and that agreement was to avoid this negative publicity, catch those stories, kill those stories, take them outside of public view.

Well, why would they want to do that? There was something called the 2016 election. Well, when did they do that? It initially started at the 2015 Trump Tower meeting. What else happened?

They heard testimony from Pecker speaking to Mr. Trump in June of 2016. And what it also tells me, Jim, is that they did not count the totality of Michael Cohen's testimony.

Very briefly stated, we know that the jury is instructed that they could disregard completely testimony if they don't agree with it or think that the persons not credible. If they're looking to hear Cohen's testimony, yes, they're looking to juxtapose that testimony next to Pecker but if Michael Cohen is so relevant and so incredible, just disregard them completely listen to Pecker. They didn't do that.

So it tells me they're focusing on the core issue of whether there was this agreement, whether there was some illegality, and what will be the purpose and need to falsify these ledgers? What's the objective? The election and if you get to the election and you get to the falsification, you get to a felony, you get to a conviction.

SCIUTTO: Yeah. So notable, right, that if you're ignoring a witness's testimony, presumably, you wouldn't have it read back to you, right, in the courtroom. Good point.

So, Linda Moreno, I want to get back to another piece that the jury had re-read to them by the judge today, and that relates to this rain metaphor. I want to get to the significance of it, but, but first, let me read this section that they had read back to them.

For example, suppose you go to bed one night when it is not raining and when you wake up in the morning, you look out your window. You do not see rain, but you see that the street and sidewalk are wet and that people are wearing raincoats and carrying umbrellas.

Under those circumstances, it may be reasonable to infer, that is conclude, that it rain during the night? In other words, the fact of having of it having rained while you were asleep is an inference that might be drawn from the proven facts or the presence of the water on the street and the sidewalk, people in raincoats carrying umbrellas, et cetera. Tell us the legal significance of this because, of course, the judge

and jury, they don't care about a rainstorm. They care about whether a crime was committed.

Is the judge communicating to the jury here? In effect, and to borrow another bad metaphor if it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it's a duck, right? That if, if you have a lot of things around it that maybe there was a crime committed. Is that how you read that?

LINDA MORENO, ATTORNEY AND JURY CONSULTANT: Yes, absolutely. Really, this is about circumstantial evidence, Jim, that's the whole point of that, because in a trial, you've got direct evidence and you've got circumstantial evidence, which is indirect evidence.

And so prosecutors really loved this example of the rain outside, but you didn't really see it directly or if there was another example, I think of, you know either you saw Mr. Trump shoot someone on Fifth Avenue or you saw him walking down Fifth Avenue with -- there's a dead body behind him and he's got a smoking gun.

SCIUTTO: Right.

MORENO: You know, that's kind of circumstantial evidence. So, that's the point of that. And most cases and most convictions are made up of circumstantial evidence. So, it's a very important jury instruction.

SCIUTTO: Yeah. Joey, I want -- when I hear that, I thought, hmm, that's interesting because that gives the jury a window here, right to convict and God knows, we don't know that, but it gives a window here to convict on having witnesses say something and some checks to financial records that speak to this broader conspiracy prosecution tried to prove and without seeing Trump say, for instance, sign that check and, you know, shouting the words out on tape of what he intended to do. If you see all the indications around it, they can convict him.

I am read -- I didn't explain that the clearest way possible, but am I reading that the correct way?

JACKSON: So, Jim, it was explained very well by you and yes, you are. And here's why that's so important. When you look at the issue of circumstantial evidence, right? What you're looking at is not specifically direct and not every crime you see where there's a smoking gun and you're standing over the body, right? Looking down, saying, I meant to do it.

So what do you have to do? You have to rely upon your common sense and good judgment. Why is that important? Let's go back briefly to closing arguments. If you're from the defense with the defense is saying the only direct connection here is Michael Cohen. He's the only one who tells you what you need to know.

Prosecution, not so fast. There are the surrounding circumstances which would suggest to you that this was the case. Why?

Because the campaign was in a tailspin. This was on the heels of Access Hollywood. We don't need another story coming out that's going to bury his campaign. Hmm.

You had the Karen McDougal Playboy model issue. Trump certainly knew a lot about that, very similar set of circumstances trying to bury her story. He doesn't know about Stormy Daniels, but he knew about that.

[15:10:14]

You put the pieces together and what you get is the issue of, wait, it's not only Michael Cohen could infer the jury who brings us here, all the surrounding circumstances, bring us here, isn't that what the prosecution said to look for and therefore, it's not only Cohen, it's everything else. And therefore, the rain metaphor -- wow, it did rain even though we didn't see it. And therefore, you come to the conclusion of guilt and that's what they're looking at.

SCIUTTO: Well, that's why -- again, as a layman here, as I've watched, this, tried to follow as closely as I can that, you know, the narrative of this case is not difficult to understand, right?

Bad story. You want to kill it. You don't want to hurt your chances in election. It's the law, right, particularly for non-lawyers like myself. That's a little bit complicated.

So seeing as I got to lawyers on television right now, Linda Moreno, let's go back to another piece of the law that the jury asked to be read to them today. And this is the part of the law that would ray -- that raises the charges to a felony. Quote, for the crime of falsifying business records in the first degree, the intent to defraud must include an intent to commit another crime or to aid or conceal the commission thereof.

Under our law, although the people must prove an intent to commit another crime or to aid or conceal the commission thereof, they need not prove that the other crime was in fact committed, aided, or concealed. Tell us what that word "jumble" means in terms of reaching that standard of a felony.

MORENO: Yes. A word "jumbo" like many jury instructions are. Specifically, really what this -- what they're talking about here is it's not as complicated as it sounds. If you've find that because Mr. Trump caused the falsifications of the records and had an intent to do so that there was this overriding goal here, which was to capture the presidency then the jury doesn't have do actually decide which means that they used in order to do that.

And I think they're going to talk a lot about that particular jury instruction, but it is a gift to the prosecution that the jury does not have to be unanimous on the particular means that that are involved but I want to say one thing about, about notes. I think that notes tell you what yours are talking about, but they don't necessarily tell you what they're actually thinking.

And I predict that they're going to be more questions and more notes, probably not a reread a jury instructions but perhaps more of the cross-examination of some of the other witnesses. So I think we have to be careful and not engage in fortune-telling

hour based on -- based on the notes because as I said, it doesn't tell you what they're thinking, but it does tell you what's going on in the room, what they're discussing.

SCIUTTO: Two great point, great caveat.

Linda Moreno, Joey Jackson, thanks so much to both of you.

Of course, we'll keep talking about it until we get a resolution.

When we do come back, the bodies of two Americans killed in Haiti have now arrived back in U.S. Exclusive details of the negotiations it's secured the return of their remains. That's coming up.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[15:16:44]

SCIUTTO: Welcome back.

New exclusive reporting from CNN tracks the first American commercial flight to Haiti in months with a solemn purpose, to retrieve the remains of a couple of killed by a gang in Port-au-Prince one week ago. And their remains just arrived back in the U.S.

CNN's Caitlin Hu brings a story now.

Caitlin, I know you spent a lot of time in Haiti covering the gang violence there. We understand this flight to retrieve those bodies was the result of quite extraordinary negotiations between the U.S. government and even some of those gang leaders. So, tell us what we know.

CAITLIN HU, CNN DIGITAL INTERNATIONAL SENIOR EDITOR: Yeah, it was incredibly delicate U.S. orchestrated operation that drew on medical workers who are on the ground there, hospitals who are on the ground there and even Haitian authorities, obviously, and even involve dealing with some gangs that control different areas in the city.

As you know, Port-au-Prince is incredibly dangerous. Some 80 percent of the city is thought to be controlled by gangs, and it's impossible -- it's highly dangerous to move large parts of the city and move around large parts of the city. And it's impossible to move through some roads that are gang-controlled and where you run the risk of kidnap or extortion or worse.

So what we understand is that to bring Davy and Nathalie's bodies and to get them on this plane safely home, U.S. officials had to work with Haitian authorities to secure special permissions to be able to move the bodies without complete embalming because there aren't those facilities in Haiti now, that has been under attack by gangs for so long. There are also special permissions they needed to be able to get to remove the bodies from the crime scene begin with and a lot of that kind of bureaucracy. Beyond that, we know that there was a lot of concern about whether

they would even be able to remove Davy and Nathalie's remains from the crime scene because of a fear that gangs would either take the bodies hostage and hold them for a ransom from the families or that they would desecrate them. And so, to do that, they had to -- they had to get on the phone or they had to have intermediaries get on the phone.

Several gang leaders who finally came to the agreement that they would allow the bodies to pass out of the territory where they were killed.

SCIUTTO: Tell us about the bigger picture there as we know it, the transitional council, as it's been set up, they did select a new prime minister earlier this week. Is there any hope, realistic hope that that move will help at least to begin to bring back some law and order?

HU: These are huge signs of progress like the reopening of the international airport and the return of an American aircraft to the airport but there's still just steps toward some kind of security. I mean, like I said, most of the city is still not under state control. It's under gang control.

And I think a big part of the hope is that by getting this government reconstructed with the governing presidential council, with a new prime minister who was named earlier this week, Garry Conille, they will start to be able to be political counterparts to the -- to the leaders of the foreign mission, the multinational security force that was greenlit by the U.N. Security Council, and allow them to, you know, finally do their deployment to the country, to back up Haiti's national police and start to push back those gangs.

[15:20:19]

SCIUTTO: Well, one can only hope for progress there. Caitlin Hu, thanks so much.

Turning now to Hong Kong. In a major blow to the city's pro-democracy movement, the rule of law there as well, the court has found 14 of Hong Kong's leading democracy figures guilty of subversion for their roles and holding an unofficial primary election in 2020. This follows the largest national security trial under a new national security law there since Beijing's sweeping crackdown on the city.

CNN's Kristie Lu Stout has the latest.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

KRISTIE LU STOUT, CNN CORRESPONDENT: The verdicts are out in Hong Kong's largest national security trial to date. It evolves 47 pro- democracy activists, now 31 had already pleaded guilty to charges of subversion, including the high-profile activist Joshua Wong. Now, 16 had pleaded not guilty, but of the 16, 14 were found to be guilty on charges of subversion today, including the former journalist Gwyneth Ho, as well as the former opposition lawmaker known as "Long Hair". A sentencing will come next. Security has been tight. We have been watching hundreds of people pour in to witness the proceedings, including diplomats from United States, the E.U., and elsewhere. Then there was that moment in the courtroom when the verdict was read out loud, some family members of defendants wept and cried openly upon hearing the news that their loved ones could very well be facing life in prison.

This has been a long legal ordeal. It all dates back to over three years ago, January of 2021 when 47 pro-democracy figures were arrested in a dawn raid. They were charge of conspiracy to commit subversion, which is a serious crime here in Hong Kong under the national security law, is punishable by up to life in prison.

They are accused of staging and unofficial primary vote, which was deemed illegal by authorities here.

Now, the national security law was imposed by Beijing on Hong Kong in 2020, in the wake of the massive anti-government protests of 2019. Critics say it has dismantled the opposition, it has crushed dissent. Supporters say it restored law and order with authorities saying it's a matter of national security as it warned against any foreign interference. But observers say that this case is a significant test of Hong Kong's judicial independence.

Watch this.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: It's absolutely clear that the national security law reduced the independence and the autonomy of the judiciary. No juries, much more difficult to get bail, those are all things that previously were determined by the -- by the judges.

STOUT: This state has won every national security case until now. Now, two defendants are two former district counselors that become the first two national security defendants to be acquitted after trial. But we've also learned that Department of Justice here on Hong Kong plans to appeal that decision.

Back to you.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

SCIUTTO: Thanks so much to Kristie Lu Stout.

After the break, a producer on Donald Trump's former hit television show, "The Apprentice" is now speaking out. Details of the new tell- all, some of them quite alarming and how this might impact Trump's campaign.

That's coming up.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[15:27:04]

SCIUTTO: A former producer on Donald Trump's hit TV show, "The Apprentice", published a tell all today alleging that his former boss made disparaging and deeply racist comments about female and Black contestants, including using, the producer alleges, the N-word to describe a Black person to contestant who ended up being a runner up in 2004. The Trump campaign, has responded by calling the story fabricated.

CNN's Oliver Darcy joins me now.

Oliver, for goodness, reading the story, it's shocking to read. Tell us exactly what the story is alleging and crucially, is there a tape? And if so, where is it?

OLIVER DARCY, CNN SENIOR MEDIA REPORTER: So, Jim, this story is from a producer of "The Apprentice" from back -- that you said back in 2004 and he says, Bill Pruitt, the producer, says that he was bound by non- disclosure agreements, so he couldn't talk about this stuff for 20 years, but that agreement he says has just expired, and so he's written this tell-all piece for "Slate Magazine".

And in the piece talks about how Donald Trump behaved behind the scenes. And in one case, like you said, he alleges that Donald Trump used the N-word when discussing a runner up in 2004, Kwame Jackson. He used the N-word according to this producer to describe that person saying that he wasn't sure America has ready for a Black person to win that show. And obviously, Kwame Jackson ended up being the runner up.

This is not a new allegation by any means. The Trump campaign is denying it, of course, saying it's outrageous and B.S. But Omarosa, who is a contestant also on "The Apprentice" back in the day has made the allegation before and she said that she even watched a tape and saw a tape of this.

And so, this is something that Trump campaign has had to grapple with, and they've, you know, throughout the years denied it.

The other allegation, Jim, that is in this is that Donald Trump's a treatment of female employees. In one case, Bill Pruitt, the producer, says that he witnessed Trump reject working with a female camera woman because he said she was too heavy -- too heavy, was in quotes there, and that he found another camera woman that he thought was, quote, a beautiful woman, and said, quote, that's all I want to look at and insistent on working with her.

And so, these allegations of sexism and racism behind the scenes on "The Apprentice" are coming out today after this producer is no longer bound by this non-disclosure agreement. And perhaps not surprising given some of the conduct that we know of Donald Trump that the things he says in front of the cameras these days. But nevertheless, quite disturbing, Jim.

SCIUTTO: Oliver Darcy, thanks so much for bringing us the details.

With me now to discuss, two political experts and CNN commentators, Republican strategist Shermichael Singleton and Democratic strategist Maria Cardona.

Good to have you both on. And, Shermichael, you and I were discussing this one where we were in break here.

[15:30:02]

What's your reaction? Simple question.

SHERMICHAEL SINGLETON, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: I mean, I want to see the tape. If not a tape, I want to see someone corroborate this.

In my opinion, if there's any truth to this, Jim, and I want to be careful because we don't know yet, right? But if there is any truth to this, man, this is like disqualifying to me. I don't see how their party, meaning the Republican Party, could even seriously want to move forward with a candidate -- I'm from the South and we have those saying in the South, if a white person uses the N-word sort of casually.

SCIUTTO: Yeah.

SINGLETON: There was the belief that they use the word a whole lot more in private.

And so, if that is true, it makes me wonder how often and how regularly did the former president use that word? And if he did use it, regularly, this is just disqualifying. I mean, I don't know how to put this in words that were even talking about them.

SCIUTTO: I mean, the trouble -- and, Maria, of course, I want to get his thoughts. The trouble is, there have been previously disqualifying comments --

SINGLETON: True.

SCIUTTO: -- you go back to the Access Hollywood tape.

SINGLETON: True.

SCIUTTO: I mean, events on January 6. I mean, it's a long list. Is the party in a position or has it shown any gumption or backbone to do so?

SINGLETON: No, of course not. But the reason I say that it should be disqualified and we've talked a lot over the past two weeks about president, former Presidents Trump's efforts with communities of color, Latino men, Black men, and we've seen if you believe some of the early data that there appear to be some movement.

I think if the Biden campaign and Democrats was smart, if you want to keep targeting African-Americans with okay, maybe you do think he's better on economics, but do you really want a potentially vote for someone who holds these types of views about people of color, specifically Black people. If you're a Black man, you're thinking, no, no, I'm not voting for this and maybe I don't like Joe Biden, but hell, I'd rather hold my nose and vote for the guy that I can disagree with on every thing, excuse my language, then the guy who views me and I can even say the word. But as an N-word? I mean -- SCIUTTO: Maria, we should note the comments as Bill Pruitt, former

producer, describes them about women are part of a pattern. We can I think say with confidence, right, given just something as simple as the Access Hollywood tape. Tell me your reaction to this and do you -- I almost hate this question, right? Because folks will often say, well, this wont matter because nothing else matters.

But first, give me your thoughts because I frankly, I doubt that conventional wisdom. But tell me your thoughts about this and do you think it's impactful?

MARIA CARDONA, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: I do think it's impactful. And to my dear friend, Shermichael, I'm glad he says that it will be disqualifying, but also, come on, Shermichael, you know, deep down inside that it is absolutely true that Donald Trump used the N-word. This is not the first time that this has been reported. This person, this producer who now has come out because the NDA is expired, said that it is on tape, but that sadly that tape probably doesn't exist. It was probably thrown away or it was probably burned because no one wanted to have people who are trying to protect Donald Trump at the time and probably forever more burned it.

But this underscores, Jim, something that we all know about this man. The reason that I think it will be impactful is because we've all talked about how there is some voter forgetfulness, if you will, right? Some, some kind of PTSD where voters kind of have forgotten just how much of a racist and the misogynist Donald Trump is, just how much of crazy chaos, confusion, and corruption he brought the first four years in office.

And so I hope that this coming out now from somebody who was absolutely credible who, you know, bit their tongue for so long because did not -- he did not want to get sued. But it's now saying this is now that I can talk about this, we cannot allow this man in the Oval Office again, I hope that people will understand and remember just how much of a practicing racist Donald Trump is. And he should not be allowed anywhere near the Oval Office again.

SCIUTTO: Well, the other the other piece here right, is that beyond forgetfulness, right as, as has been argued, there is data that shows Black voters moving to Trump, but expressed at least pressing and openness to vote for Trump. Not most, but some and enough, they could move the election.

Aware of that, Biden is campaigning hard. He's campaigning with Black voters in Philadelphia, and he really went after Trump's record with Black Americans. Have a listen to some of that and I want to get your thoughts, Shermichael.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JOE BIDEN, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: It's the same guy who wanted to tear gas you as you peacefully protest the George Floyd's murder. The same guy who still calls the Central Park Five guilty, even though they're exonerated. He's that landlord who denies housing application because of the color your skin. [15:35:00]

And then Trump tells you he's the greatest president -- I love this one -- he says he's the greatest president for Black people in the history of American including more than Abraham Lincoln.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SCIUTTO: The campaign already responded to this "Slate" article. So I'm imagining, you can add that to the list.

But is he, Shermichael having impact with this push? It's early.

SINGLETON: It is early. I mean, look, Black people, I think for the most part have their views on Donald Trump. I think despite that, you're still seeing some slim movement with some Black men. I don't think it's enough for President Biden to only focus on this. I think President Biden, if I were advising him as Republicans advice here, I would say you need to speak a little more concretely to Black men and maybe Black men only on economics.

You need to sort of take away the message that Trump has been able to say two Black men, but you're not doing as well as you could be doing under Biden and of the Biden administration. And I've had advised, I actually had a conversation with someone that's on the campaign today.

I said this is what I would do. I said I would spend a couple of weeks doing some rallies with Black men only, send the president to the barbershop, do some focus groups with some Black men and actually hear them out. I think that will move the needle, but I think this is a start.

But again, to my point that I made earlier, this is disqualifying to me and I think if President Biden can talk about this and also make the connection to the economic issues. But I think that's the winning message.

SCIUTTO: Okay, Shermichael.

Before we go, Maria, because the last time we had you on the show with me, we had you with your I think we can say favorite partner on television, that, of course, is Alice Stewart, now passed away short time ago. Such a shocking, shocking loss and I think we have a picture when she was on with us. So there you are there are two together.

Any thought about before we go?

CARDONA: Jim, you're going to make me cry.

Thank you for doing this. This is something that is not going to go away anytime soon. Alice was a dear, dear friend and an important and beloved part of the CNN family. She and I went on your show so many times and on other shows as well, and I love this conversation that I'm having with Shermichael, because this is making Alice smile right now, because this is exactly what she wants from all of us. We are disagreeing on things. We can come together on issues, but most

importantly, and above everything else, we do it with civility. We do it with respect. We do it, honoring each other as human beings. And that is how we're going to honor Alice Stewart, you know, for, as long as we do this.

So thank you so much, Jim. I really appreciate it. And she loved you and she loved you, Shermichael as well.

SCIUTTO: Let's take that inspiration from her then.

Maria Cardona, Shermichael Singleton, memory for our all departed friend, Alice Stewart.

Just after the break, will the U.S. join other NATO allies in potentially allowing Ukraine to use U.S. supplied weapons to strike within Russia?

Secretary Blinken is meeting with top diplomats. Former U.S. ambassador to Ukraine, Bill Taylor, will join me next to discuss.

Please stay tuned.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[15:41:25]

SCIUTTO: Welcome back.

Today, U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken is in Prague, meeting with NATO foreign ministers reaffirming support for Ukraine very much at the top of the agenda.

This as some NATO allies have said that Ukraine should be allowed to use western supplied weapons to strike targets inside Russian territory. U.S. policy currently does not allow Ukraine to use U.S. weapons inside Russia. But there are some signs that position could be softening.

CNN's Melissa Bell joins me now from Paris.

And, Melissa, of course, some of America's closest allies have already said quite publicly, France among them, that that Ukraine can and should use weapons to strike Russian positions inside Russia that are currently striking Ukraine.

Are you hearing that there's movement from the U.S. side on this?

MELISSA BELL, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Well, we did here, Jim, was from Secretary Blinken himself in Moldova, just ahead of the Prague leg of his visit, where he's now at this meeting of NATO foreign ministers. And what he said very clearly for the first time was that indirect response to the question of whether the United States would follow suit and they'd be following the footsteps, by the way, United Kingdom, France, Germany, and Poland already who said they're giving the green light to Ukraine to use their weapons on targets from where attacks being launched on Ukraine. But that are on Russian soil.

And what Secretary Blinken had to say was that, look, so far, the United States has followed and adjusted and adapted to changes on the battlefield. And he believed that that would continue to be the case. And whilst that doesn't signal a change of policy, it certainly signals that a change of policy might be possible.

Here's what Jens Stoltenberg had to say in Prague today about his rationale for calling for this change.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JENS STOLTENBERG, NATO SECRETARY GENERAL: But I think that in light, how this war has evolved in the beginning almost all the fighting took place on Ukrainian territory deep into Ukrainian territory but now the lost weeks or months, most of the heavy fighting has taken place, actually along the border between Russia and Ukraine in the Kharkiv region.

Therefore, I believe that the time has come to consider some of these restrictions to enable the Ukrainians to really defend themselves.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BELL: So it is because that fighting is resolved, the opening of that third front above Kharkiv, Jim has happened along the border. That is the reason he believes that this change could be a game changer for Ukrainians in their attempts to defend their soil from Russian attacks.

The biggest game changer of all though, of course, would be if the largest donor of weapons to Ukraine, that is the United States, decided to hit that cold, Jim.

SCIUTTO: No question.

Different topic if I can, before you go. CNN with some shocking but important new reporting out of Ukraine, speaking to four men who'd been detained by Russian forces and occupied -- occupied Ukraine, saying that Russian soldiers subjected them to sexual violence just awful, awful accounts here.

What can you tell us?

BELL: Difficult to read but important reading on our digital platforms, Jim, because what we're talking about are allegations that have been made for a long time about the system Russia's penitentiary system, what happens in Russian prisons on Russian soil?

This is historically something that's been covered and give it a great deal of attention to, what appears to be happening. And we're hearing this from Ukrainian prosecutors who are trying to investigate these cases, we're talking here about occupied Ukraine, those parts of Ukraine under Russian control.

And what we're hearing, what there appears to be in remembered that this would constitute a war crime under the Rome statute at the ICC, is a systematic use of rape and sexual abuse. These are the allegations being made and increasingly against men.

[15:45:03]

So what you saw at the beginning of this conflict, to remember, were the allegations of widespread use of rape and sexual abuse against women. What they're seeing more and more of is the systematic abuse of Ukrainian men in Russian detention centers but by the Russians that are keeping them.

The details are difficult to read. The collecting of evidence has made all the more difficult by the stigma attached. And yet, what appears to be happening, say the Ukrainians, is that this is part of Russia's attempt to really subdue the Ukrainian people.

And whilst it makes for chilling reading, it's an important reminder of what happens just on the other side of the border in Ukraine, Jim.

SCIUTTO: Yeah, certainly part of a pattern of not just targeting civilians for killing, but just, just intense and horrible abuse.

Melissa Bell, thanks so much.

Joining me now to discuss, former U.S. ambassador to Ukraine, William Taylor.

Ambassador, thanks so much for joining us again.

WILLIAM TAYLOR, FORMER U.S. AMBASSADOR TO UKRAINE: Thank you, Jim. Good to be here.

SCIUTTO: First, I want to get to this question of, Ukraine being allowed by the U.S. to use us supplied weapons to strike inside Russian territory. The NATO chief is clearly in favor of it. Do you believe the U.S. should lift this restriction?

And as you listen to Secretary Blinken and others, do you get the sense that that's imminent?

TAYLOR: Well, Jim, yes. I think we're hearing from Secretary Blinken that there's a real debate. Others have heard this as well, real debate within the administration. This has been coming for several weeks as the secretary-general said, when the fighting shifted, and the Russians began to come across the border just north of Kharkiv.

That was a different situation. That is, the Russians were just to cross the border, able to fire their artillery, but also their weapons, their air weapons. Jets are able to shoot these glide bombs from Russian territory into Kharkiv and into those defenses.

So that was a different situation that the Ukrainians could not fire back because of the restrictions put on the Western world.

SCIUTTO: The Kremlin spokesman, Dmitry Peskov, was asked about this and he said that NATO countries in his words, are provoking Ukraine in every possible way to continue this senseless war. We've often heard from not just Peskov, but certainly Putin himself as well, you know, they rattled the nuclear saber. They talk about escalation.

But when I speak to particularly U.S. or rather European officials in Eastern Europe, they believe that Washington exaggerates the chances of escalation. And I wonder, do you agree -- do you agree with that? I mean, is the threat of a direct conflict with Russia overblown?

TAYLOR: I think the intelligence community in this country, in the United States, I think the CIA, Bill Burns has actually said that he thinks the earlier emphasis or concerned about escalation was overdrawn, was overblown, and he made the clear statement that that kind of what could possibly be a bluff should not keep us from doing what we should do. And so, yes, I think in an earlier time, there was concern. I think that concern has declined at this point. I think we are -- you are seeing that. Every time there was expressed concern about what might happen if we provide the next level of weapons. And that made us hesitate to provide these weapons.

And then eventually we did. And then we went to the next level and to the next level. And now this is a question on the removing of the sanctuary from the Russians.

SCIUTTO: Of course, there was a long delay six months where USAID was not coming due to opposition from Republicans in the House. That's passed. U.S. weapons on the way, a significant aid package.

But the Russian seemed to have taken advantage of that long delay. They're making advances in northeastern Ukraine.

What is your best read of the state of the war, right now? First of all, can Ukraine in the near term, hold back that Russian advance, advance and then what happens?

TAYLOR: They can hold back the Russian advance, when and if and as our new weapons, our new ammunition, our new air defenses get into Ukraine and that they can use them. So, yes, you're right, long delay. The weapons in that new package are flowing in slowly, but they're starting to accelerate in, that will enable the Ukrainians to hold the line, which is what they going to have to do this year as they get as they bring in new soldiers, as they get this new equipment into units and train these new units.

That will then enable them, probably next year, to take the offensive again.

SCIUTTO: We'll be watching closely. Ambassador William Taylor, thanks so much for joining.

TAYLOR: Thanks, Jim.

SCIUTTO: When we come back, can Biden win over Taylor Swift or Zendaya?

[15:50:03] New CNN reporting dives into how Hollywood is approaching this election season and the heightened awareness to take on an increasingly divided electorate.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

SCIUTTO: Rolling out the red carpet. The Biden campaign is courting big name Hollywood stars to energize and engage Democratic voters before November. Of course, there's a long history of Hollywood's partnership with the White House. You had Nixon and Elvis, Obama and Oprah, Trump and Kanye.

But even as Biden racks up his own A-list surrogates, new CNN reporting exposes heightened reluctance among many major stars, including Gen Z superstars to weigh in during such a fraught political moment.

CNN's Elizabeth Wagmeister at brings us that story.

Elizabeth, who exactly is the campaign courting. And I wonder who is not answering that call?

ELIZABETH WAGMEISTER, CNN ENTERTAINMENT CORRESPONDENT: You know, this is very different from the last election, Jim, where Hollywood really rallied behind the Democratic candidate. And as you said, there's a long history in Hollywood, of Hollywood really coming together.

But this year, things are so polarized and those two quite unpopular candidates that people are concerned of speaking out. They don't feel that it's worth the risk. In fact, I have a celebrity publicist who tells me this, Jim. They say it's a different world than it was ten years ago. You can't make anyone happy. You can't win.

Another Hollywood publicist tells me it'll be the usual suspects. But four years ago, who were you, if you weren't speaking out?

Now you ask who they are courting, we don't know those exact names, but I do have a political strategist who tells me that, of course, Taylor Swift would be the one that they want, right? She kind of hits every component of mass appeal and also Zendaya, who's probably the biggest Gen Z star.

Now we do not know if they have reached out to them, but the fact of the matter is, is that Gen Z is a big concern. The Biden campaign is concerned about younger voters getting to the poll and the campaign knows that if they had one of these huge superstars coming out, that that can really help get -- get the word out.

SCIUTTO: Trump, of course, is a celebrity himself who has a big TV show that some say launched his political career, but, but does not have, let's be frank as much or even much at all, Hollywood support.

[15:55:05]

Is the Trump campaign trying to draft in some stars? WAGMEISTER: I don't think so at all. You know, there are a few Hollywood supporters of Trump from Jon Voight to Chris Rock to country star Jayson Aldean. But Trump knows that Hollywood is not in his pocket. In fact, he typically uses Hollywood as the punching bag, right, and calls out the Hollywood liberal elites as he has said in the past.

But I will tell you from the dozen sources that I spoke to along with our colleague, Priscilla Alvarez, we spoke to political strategists. We spoke to celebrity publicists and agents. They all say that while there isn't as much enthusiasm for President Joe Biden, the number one galvanizing force in Hollywood is to beat Trump. And that is where Hollywood will come together.

We hear that celebrities that may not be giving an endorsement to a specific candidate, but they will be aligning with certain issues that they are passionate about, such as climate change and certainly abortion while reproductive freedom hangs in the balance.

So I think ultimately we will see celebrities come around issues, Jim, not candidates.

SCIUTTO: Elizabeth Wagmeister, thanks so much.

And thanks so much to all of you for joining me today. I'm Jim Sciutto in Washington.

"QUEST MEANS BUSINESS" is up next.