Return to Transcripts main page

CNN This Morning

Today: Day Two Of Jury Selection In Trump's Hush Money Trial; Johnson: House To Vote On Separate Aid Bills For Ukraine And Israel; Today: Israel's War Cabinet To Meet To Discuss Iran Response. Aired 5:30-6a ET

Aired April 16, 2024 - 05:30   ET

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

(COMMERCIAL)

[05:31:50]

JIM ACOSTA, CNN ANCHOR: All right, welcome back. It is now 31 minutes past the hour. I'm Jim Acosta in for Kasie Hunt.

Just moments ago, check --

(Olympic torch lighting in Olympia, Greece).

There it is -- the lighting of the Olympic torch in the games' ancient home of Olympia, Greece. This, just the first along a very long journey for the torch on its way to Paris and the opening of the 2024 Summer Olympics. All right, we're all getting excited for that.

In the meantime, it's day two of jury selection in former President Donald Trump's criminal hush money trial. More than 50 people were immediately dismissed Monday when they said they could not be fair and impartial in all of this. That's more than half of the group. Today, the remaining 32 potential jurors will be asked to answer questions that could indicate their political views.

Trump, seemingly aware of the importance of jury selection, said this on Friday.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DONALD TRUMP (R), FORMER U.S. PRESIDENT, 2024 PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: Jury selection is largely luck. It depends who you get. It's very unfair that I'm having a trial there.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

ACOSTA: Plus, Trump making an unusual request. His attorneys telling the judge that he would like to take part in sidebars, either approaching the judge's bench or meeting with him in a side room.

Joining me now is CNN legal analyst, Joey Jackson. Joey, that sounds kind of interesting if that develops but I -- let's just first get your take on jury selection. I guess it is kind of a dry process, which might explain why Trump was having trouble staying awake.

What was your sense of things coming out of day one?

JOEY JACKSON, CNN LEGAL ANALYST, CRIMINAL DEFENSE ATTORNEY (via Webex by Cisco): Jim, good morning to you.

You know, it's an important part of the process to be clear and to be sure. And I thought the judge, in being very fair when people gave the indication that they could not be fair -- he said there's nothing to see here -- goodbye. And that's unusual and I'll tell you why.

Generally, when people are saying hey, I'm not -- I can't be fair, I can't be reasonable, I can't be decent, the judge will rehabilitate them and say hey -- well, you know, not so fast. Let's talk about this a little bit. You may have some views but you'd agree with me that you base a decision based on what's in court and you wouldn't bring those views outside and bring them in and hold it against this person, would you?

So I think to that extent, it was very important that the judge said you know what, I'm going to dismiss you outright in an extra measure to be fair.

And then, of course, we'll get to these more questionings today of the jurors who are remaining to determine whether they have any biases, additional, that weren't disclosed already, and whether or not they can be impaneled.

So we knew, Jim, it would be a challenge, absolutely, without question -- but I think at the end of the day, they'll get it right. They'll get -- they'll get it on in terms of the merits and ultimately, we'll start hearing evidence. It might take a few more days, though.

ACOSTA: Yeah. And, Joey, what do you think about this request from Trump to be a part of these sidebars? Does he not trust his lawyers?

JACKSON: So, generally speaking, what happens is that you have an absolute right to be at every portion of the proceeding, including the sidebars. However, you waive those rights. It's called Antommarchi rights, right, where you, yes, indeed, you have a right to be everywhere. You're the defendant.

[05:35:00]

But you let your lawyers handle the business. You waive the right. You remain at the defense table and you don't proceed further.

You know, it's interesting. I'm wondering whether the lawyers, for their own protection, said hey, he better come with me.

But it's somewhat unusual. It doesn't happen. It's very awkward to have your client engaged to that extent, particularly when it's the former President of the United States. And I'm just not sure whether this -- I mean, I'm pretty sure it emanates from him because he likes to be involved in everything.

ACOSTA: Right, right. JACKSON: But I'm not so sure that the lawyers are so upset about that because of who he is. What'd he say? What went on? What are you not telling me?

So, yes, this is a little unusual.

ACOSTA: Yeah. And there's also -- the prosecution is asking the judge to start sanctioning Trump, start fining him. A lot of the anticipation going into this trial was oh, the judge might lock him up. He might put him behind bars if he violates the gag order, and so on. I suppose what you could also see develop is fines start to pile up for the former president if he goes outside the bounds. If the judge feels like he's gone too far.

JACKSON: Yeah, that's important. And what's also significant is that if you're going to have a gag order you have to give it teeth, otherwise why have the order?

And so, yes, I think it was proper for prosecutors to say hey, listen, he has already violated the gag order. What are we going to do about it? Certainly, a judge starts with an admonishment of a defendant, saying hey, look, you're not supposed to do that. And then, of course, it escalates to fines.

What's interesting to me, Jim, is whether or not to give it teeth he puts him in and says hey, look, enough is enough. I've told you not to tweet about the witnesses. You've done it in direct violation of my order.

And let's see by the time we get to the hearing next Tuesday how many other violations, if any, the president engages in and what the judge does about it -- and says hey, listen, enough is enough. Fines, clearly, are not working and, therefore, why don't you just take a little minute inside and have a little time out, in terms of jail, in order to get the point that you can't violate court orders.

ACOSTA: Yeah. I guess take smaller steps for us before building up to something that really might send a message.

All right, Joey Jackson. Thanks, as always. I really appreciate it. Great to see you.

JACKSON: Of course. Thanks, Jim.

ACOSTA: All right.

Also happening, the House will vote on sending aid to Ukraine and Israel in separate bills -- at least that's the plan at the moment. Speaker Mike Johnson announcing the move after hardline conservatives fought against including Ukraine funding in a foreign aid package.

Here's what Johnson said on Monday.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REP. MIKE JOHNSON (R-LA): What we'll do is bring to the House floor independent measures. We won't be voting on the Senate supplemental in its current form, but we will vote on each of these measures separately in four different pieces. We're discussing whether they would be merged together in one package that's sent to the Senate or if it goes over as individual measures. My personal preference is to do it individually but we'll let the body decide.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

ACOSTA: Johnson says he expects the House will vote on the separate bills on Friday.

And joining me now is Washington Post breaking news reporter, Mariana Alfaro. Mariana, I mean, some Republicans have already come out against merging these bills. We've seen this play out for a few weeks now.

Congressman Andy Biggs wrote this on social media -- if we can put this up on the screen -- saying, "Israel funding should not be held hostage by Ukraine funding. The American people deserve to know where their senators stand on each funding component."

I mean, Mike Johnson is trying to figure out a way, it seems, to get this done. And he has indicated behind closed doors that he would like to see a vote on Ukraine funding.

What do you think is going to happen here? I suppose if they -- if they split these up, especially in light of what we saw take place over this past weekend with the Iranian attack on Israel, there is going to be, I would imagine, bipartisan support for both of these bills individually.

MARIANA ALFARO, NATIONAL POLITICS BREAKING NEWS REPORTER, THE WASHINGTON POST: Yeah. What we heard yesterday after all of these congressmen were coming out of their meetings was that they want to be able to vote their conscience. You know, people who are against Ukraine aid want to be able to say that on the record. And also, they want to make sure that they make it clear that they stand united for Israel, and that is kind of what they're going to be able to do with these two bills.

And we're also talking about a Taiwan bill, which also we know will allow them to vote. And I think that one would be a little -- a little less complicated.

But they definitely want to be on the record showing that they can go back home and say see, we voted for Israel but we also tried to stop the continued funding of Ukraine.

ACOSTA: Yeah, and there has been a lot of controversy around Taiwan. And I suppose there's the issue of the border funding --

ALFARO: Yes.

ACOSTA: -- matter that's been talked about for weeks now.

One of Johnson's biggest critics has been Marjorie Taylor Greene. Here's what she had to say about his proposal.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REP. MARJORIE TAYLOR GREENE (R-GA): I am firmly against the plan as it stands right now. People are not going to like any of this. They're going to be angry about it. And I think this is -- I think it's another wrong direction for Speaker Johnson and our conference.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

[05:40:00]

ACOSTA: I mean, there's definitely a portion of the MAGA wing of the Republican Party in the House -- Freedom Caucus folks and people like Marjorie Taylor Greene -- they do not want to see a vote on Ukraine and they see this as a key test for Mike Johnson. And he -- it sounds as though he is going to take this risk in disappointing them and ticking them off in the case of Majorie Taylor Greene --

ALFARO: Yeah.

ACOSTA: -- and just going forward with this.

ALFARO: Yes. And I think that he knows -- he came out yesterday after all this came out and he was saying I don't really want to think about a motion to vacate right now and I'm not concerned about that. I just want to get this done.

And there is that, I guess, saving grace for him is that the Democrats have said that if he goes through with a package that kind of resembles what the Senate passed already they will defend him. They will save him from a motion to vacate. And I think that that's the calculation here.

And also, yesterday, Greene was saying I don't know yet if I'm going to move on that, even though she's been threatening it for a while.

ACOSTA: Hmm.

ALFARO: So I think that there's been a pause there -- yeah.

ACOSTA: Yeah, I think we have a little bit of sound to that effect. Let's listen to that.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

GREENE: He is definitely not going to be speaker next Congress if we're lucky enough to have the majority. And I think that is a widely held belief throughout the conference.

MANU RAJU, CNN CHIEF CONGRESSIONAL CORRESPONDENT: He can remain speaker for the rest of this Congress, do you think?

GREENE: That is to be determined. Like I said, I'm still processing (INAUDIBLE).

(END VIDEO CLIP)

ACOSTA: I mean, there's a lot of different ways to look at this. I mean, she did seem to have some influence when Kevin McCarthy was the speaker. Maybe that's not the case with Mike Johnson and she doesn't like -- I mean, does she have any aims on becoming the Speaker of the House herself?

What do you think is going on here?

ALFARO: Yeah, that's the thing, too.

ACOSTA: Yeah.

ALAFARO: Because they saw what happened when they removed Speaker McCarthy and it just threw the entire conference into disarray. And that was not a good look, especially this close to the election. And you don't want to do that again with Mike Johnson.

Now, also, the other thing, too, is that we saw Johnson go to Mar-a- Lago over the weekend and he was there with President Trump. And President Trump, it seemed like, was signaling Marjorie, don't do this. Like, right now, we can't do this this close to November.

ACOSTA: Yeah.

ALFARO: And also, Johnson kind of has been a little bit more trying to find the pathways for everyone. And I think that is something that I think Greene has taken into account in this calculation.

ACOSTA: And I guess you have to wonder will Democrats bail out Mike Johnson if it comes to that? I mean, if he's going to give them Ukraine aid, there -- I mean, I've talked to at least one member of the House on the Democratic side who said yeah, OK -- well, maybe we'll take that into consideration. There are lots of others --

ALFARO: Yes.

ACOSTA: -- who don't want to do that. They'd rather see a scenario where perhaps Hakeem Jeffries --

ALFARO: Yes.

ACOSTA: -- could become the speaker. So they do talk about it.

ALFARO: Yeah, yeah, they talk about it often -- yeah.

But that's the thing. I think that there is more willingness here to step in --

ACOSTA: Yeah.

ALFARO: -- and save Johnson if he does -- if he's willing to work with them -- and that's the thing. That is what they've always been asking for.

The one thing here, too, is that there is a portion missing in the negotiations we've seen so far. We haven't seen the bill text yet for all these four bills. But there is the issue of aid to Palestine, and I think that is where a lot of liberal Democrats might step back and say we are not willing to save Johnson if we don't see that included anywhere here.

ACOSTA: Interesting.

All right, Mariana Alfaro. Thank you very much. Great to see you this morning. I really appreciate it.

Coming up next, Washington and the world waiting to see how Israel responds to Iran's weekend attack. Plus, Caitlin Clark's star shining even brighter. You're going to get to watch her a whole lot more after last night's WNBA draft. That's coming up.

(COMMERCIAL)

[05:47:35]

ACOSTA: The world is waiting for Israel's response to Iran's unprecedented weekend assault. Israel's army chief telling soldiers that it is a question of how and when, not if.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

LT. GEN. HERZL HALEVI, CHIEF OF STAFF, ISRAEL DEFENSE FORCES: (through translator): Iran wants to harm the strategic capabilities of the state of Israel. This is something that did not happen in the past. When we look ahead, we are considering our steps. And this launch of so many missiles -- cruise missiles and UAVs into the territory of the state of Israel will be met with a response.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

ACOSTA: Israel's war cabinet meeting again today to discuss options for a response.

Joining me now, Joel Rubin, former deputy assistant Secretary of State for Legislative Affairs under President Obama.

I mean, this was -- I covered the second Obama administration. This was not exactly the situation that Barack Obama had a deal with when he was president. I mean, he did deal with Iran. He had his run-ins with Bibi Netanyahu from time to time, but nothing like this.

And I just wonder what you think about all of this, Joel.

Let's listen to what John Kirby said yesterday about some of this.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JOHN KIRBY, NATIONAL SECURITY COUNCIL SPOKESMAN: This is an Israeli decision to make, whether and how they'll respond. We're going to leave it squarely with them. We are not involved in their decision- making process about a potential response.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

ACOSTA: And, Joel, it's interesting because over the weekend --

JOEL RUBIN, FORMER DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF STATE FOR LEGISLATIVE AFFAIRS UNDER PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA: Yeah.

ACOSTA: -- we were hearing this reporting that President Biden was essentially saying slow down a little bit. Take this as a win.

RUBIN: That's right.

ACOSTA: That you didn't have any -- a lot of casualties and a lot of damage in Israel.

But at the same time, you heard John Kirby there saying hey, we're not involved. This is on them.

What do you think?

RUBIN: Yeah. Well look, Jim, this is an unprecedented attack, as you said --

ACOSTA: Yeah.

RUBIN: -- and a real clear victory for Israel in its defense -- not just militarily but also its victory in terms of assembling an international coalition with a heavy, heavy major assist from President Biden. In fact, President Biden has been very low-key about describing his efforts, and I think he gets an A+ for organizing an international coalition to protect Israel.

And so, the Israelis -- they're looking at this from the long run perspective and I think that's good for the United States -- for us to kind of pull back a little bit and not seem to be micromanaging their responses. They know very well that now they have a lot of positive international support related to Iran and they should take it because they haven't had a lot of positive international support over the past several months.

ACOSTA: Right. It really cratered during that campaign in Gaza --

[05:50:00]

RUBIN: Right, right.

ACOSTA: -- which is still continuing, obviously.

And what options do you think the Israelis are considering at this point? One has to think that if there is a direct military response that goes after Iranian territory that is going to trigger --

RUBIN: Yeah.

ACOSTA: -- a reprisal from the Iranians. But I suppose the Israelis could target something else. Go outside of Iranian territory and see if that is sufficient for domestic political purposes and so on. RUBIN: Yeah. You know, if you -- if you take a step back and you look at the last two weeks or so of activity since April 1 -- since the time that Israel struck this compound in Damascus -- overall, it's a net benefit gain for Israel. They knocked out seven leading IRGC generals and their support staff, and they provided a defensive shield that demonstrated extraordinary military prowess and rebuilt an international coalition.

So if they take any actions they want to make sure they maintain those gains. And that means not doing what the Iranians did, which was targeting indiscriminately cities in Israel and going after military assets that are very clear and not killing individuals in a manner that would provoke another Iranian retaliation. If they can finesse that then they really have come out ahead in these last several weeks.

ACOSTA: Yeah. What -- I mean, what is your sense of it? I'm sure you talk to folks in and around the administration --

RUBIN: Yeah.

ACOSTA: -- and folks close to the administration. I can't get my arms around whether or not the Iranians were trying to send a message and do it in a way where they knew most of this stuff wasn't going to get shot down, or -- I mean, it sounded as, from what the administration was saying, is they thought OK, this demonstrates the Iranian capabilities here. But I wonder if that is maybe a little over- confident?

RUBIN: Yeah. Look, my assessment --

ACOSTA: Yeah.

RUBIN: -- from communication with folks on the inside as well as the expert community --

ACOSTA: Yeah.

RUBIN: -- is that this exceeded what the expectations were in terms of an Iranian response. There was not an anticipation that there would be several hundred missiles.

ACOSTA: Yeah.

RUBIN: That there would be ICBMs. There would be cruise missiles. There would be drones as sort of a multipronged attack and that it would go after --

ACOSTA: Pretty scary stuff.

RUBIN: -- civilian areas.

Exactly.

ACOSTA: Yeah, yeah.

RUBIN: And we should be grateful and thanking our lucky stars that nothing got through.

And this is something very important to remind folks that if the United States had not stepped in and provided this kind of defensive and diplomatic support, it's quite likely we would have had an Israeli response immediately to Iran and we would have seen explosion in the Middle East. So our stepping in and preventing that was crucial.

And I don't think that people really did expect Iran to kind of do the untargeted, non-pinpoint, but really, across-the-board attack that it did. And so that does scramble the calculations about how risky Iran really is in its military behavior and how much extra they provided in this response out of a concern that maybe they are losing in these shadow war engagements with Israel.

ACOSTA: Interesting.

All right, Joel Rubin. We know you'll be keeping your eyes on it as we are --

RUBIN: You bet.

ACOSTA: -- as well. Joel Rubin, thank you very much.

RUBIN: Thanks, Jim.

ACOSTA: Always appreciate it.

What has been expected for months is now official. Caitlin Clark is headed to the WNBA as the number one overall draft pick.

Carolyn Manno has this morning's Bleacher Report. Good morning, Carolyn.

CAROLYN MANNO, CNN SPORTS CORRESPONDENT: Jim, good morning.

This was one of the most certain picks in the 28-year history of the WNBA draft. A week after wrapping up her historic college career, Caitlin Clark turns pro.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

CATHY ENGELBERT, COMMISSIONER, WNBA: With the first pick in the 2024 WNBA draft, the Indiana Fever select Caitlin Clark from the University of Iowa.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

MANNO: She is the all-time leading scorer in NCAA Division I basketball history, men's or women's. And she should add a scoring boost to a team that has not made the playoffs since 2016.

Ticket prices, Jim, to watch the Fever in Indianapolis this season more than doubled after she announced that she would enter the draft.

And she spoke with Coy Wire just before her name was called.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

CAITLIN CLARK, SELECTED #1 IN WNBA DRAFT: I'm super-excited. I know this will be super-special. And I have a lot of family coming. My coaches are coming. Some of my teammates are coming. So just getting to enjoy it and soak it in I think is the biggest thing because, like, this is once in a lifetime. This only happens once.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

MANNO: The Los Angeles Sparks selected Stanford forward Cameron Brink with the second pick in the draft. And the Chicago Sky picked up some size by drafting 2024 NCAA Women's Tournament Most Outstanding Player Kamilla Cardoso from the reigning champs University of South Carolina with the third pick. Last year's national champ and Most Outstanding Player Angel Reese from LSU going at the seventh spot last night.

Meantime, the NBA Play-In Tournament tipping off tonight with a pair of Western Conference matchups. LeBron and the Lakers facing a familiar foe, Zion Williamson and the Pelicans. L.A. beat them handily in the regular season finale on Sunday, but King James says his guys need to be ready for a Pelicans team that is eager to turn the tables.

[05:55:00]

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

LEBRON JAMES, FORWARD, LOS ANGELES LAKERS: And when you play a playoff series -- and I'm looking at this -- it's like a two-game playoff series. And when you -- if you win that first game, a team has multiple days to kind of sit on that feeling or sit with that taste in their mouth of defeat. So they're going to be extremely ready for us and we have to come in with the same sense of urgency.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

MANNO: The Lakers and Pelicans getting things started at 7:30 Eastern on our sister channel TNT. The winner becomes the seventh seed in the playoffs and will face the defending champs the Nuggets in the first round. Then it's going to be the Warriors and the Kings in a rematch of last year's first-round series won by Golden State.

And lastly for you this morning, former Patriots star Rob Gronkowski threw out the first pitch at the Red Sox Patriots' Day game yesterday. In true style, Gronk unleashing his signature end zone celebration, spiking the ball into the dirt. The fans at Fenway loved it. And they actually were not the only ones that loved this celebration. Gronk's old teammate Tom Brady taking to Instagram saying, "Love seeing that Gronk spike."

The Red Sox ended up losing to the Cleveland Guardians 6-0.

But all the fans getting exactly what they wanted with Gronk returning and, of course, spiking the baseball -- because why not, Jim? Why not?

ACOSTA: Yeah. I guess it's boring to just throw it over the pitch now. I mean, you -- you've got to spike the baseball if you're Gronkowski, of course.

All right, great stuff. Carolyn Manno, thank you very much. Appreciate it.

Coming up, the challenge of finding impartial jurors in Donald Trump's hush money trial. Plus, a January 6 case before the Supreme Court. How their decision could impact Trump's other criminal cases. That's coming up.

(COMMERCIAL)

[06:00:00]