Return to Transcripts main page

CNN This Morning

Day 2 of Jury Selection Begins Today in Trump Hush-Money Trial; SCOTUS Considers if 1/6 Rioters Can Be Charged with Obstruction; Israel's War Cabinet Vows Response to Iran's Attack. Aired 6-6:30a ET

Aired April 16, 2024 - 06:00   ET

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

JIM ACOSTA, CNN ANCHOR: It's Tuesday, April 16. Right now on CNN THIS MORNING, day two of Donald Trump's hush-money trial. The search for impartial jurors goes on. It's off to a slow and challenging start.

[06:01:10]

The Supreme Court about to hear arguments in a case that could impact future criminal prosecutions of the former president and January 6 rioters.

And "The Wall Street Journal" reporting that the Justice Department will sue Live Nation over the way they sell you tickets. All of that coming up.

It's 6 a.m. here in Washington.

All right, 6 a.m. here in Washington. Look at that beautiful picture. It's a live look at Manhattan. A gorgeous morning there in the Big Apple. Good morning, everyone. I'm Jim Acosta in for Kasie Hunt here in Washington. I'm not there in New York, but it's great to be with you.

If day two of Donald Trump's hush-money trial is anything like day one, it's going to be a challenge seating a jury before Memorial Day.

On Monday, more than 50 perspective jurors out of a group of 96 were instantly dismissed when they admitted they couldn't be fair and impartial. The day concluding without a single juror being selected.

The defense is in no hurry to wrap up this process. Sources tell CNN to expect many objections and sidebars during the trial, because Trump's lawyers are laser-focused on preserving every issue for appeal.

The former president maintained largely -- remained largely silent. I should say, well-behaved for much of day one. But once court recessed for the day, he went on a familiar rant.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DONALD TRUMP (R), FORMER U.S. PRESIDENT, 2024 PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: We've got a real problem with this judge, a real problem with a lot of things having to do with this trial, including the D.A. Because you go right outside, and people are being mugged and killed all day long. I can't go to my son's graduation I can't go to the United States Supreme Court.

This is about election interference. That's all it's about. Thank you very much.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

ACOSTA: Now to be clear, Judge Merchant has not ruled whether Trump can be excused for his son's graduation.

Let's bring in former federal prosecutor Elliott Williams; David Frum, staff writer with "The Atlantic"; CNN political commentators Shermichael Singleton; and Lulu Garcia-Navarro of "The New York Times" and of CNN.

Elliott, you know, it's jury selection. There ain't a whole lot to talk about it. But --

ELLIOTT WILLIAMS, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: Oh, no, no, no.

ACOSTA: Au contraire.

WILLIAMS: I beg to differ, my friend.

ACOSTA: But I mean, you know, surprise, surprise that it was going to be hard to find an impartial jury to, I guess, consider the fate of Donald Trump. What did you think?

WILLIAMS: So a few things. Now, again, the way jury selection works is that you get rid of jurors who can't legally serve, who have some impediment or basis where they just don't think they can be fair. And then both parties are able to strike a finite number of people that they just don't want.

What the judge did here was pretty much by a show of hands, who can't be fair to Donald Trump. Fifty people raised their hands, and he threw them out. Now, that judge could have kept those jurors, because if he'd asked each -- every single one of them, you know, you've said you can't be fair. But what if I told you what the facts and the law were? Could you then follow my instructions? And some of them would invariably say, yes, I could do that.

I think what the judge was doing was just getting rid of anybody who might have even been a shred of a problem, recognizing that it was going to take a very long time to pick a jury, and he's just getting out the chaff from the wheat and trying to thin the herd as much as he can.

ACOSTA: And Elliott, I mean, you're our legal expert here, so let me ask you this. What about the judge's decision to not play the infamous "Access Hollywood" tape for the jury, but to allow Karen McDougal to testify? I mean, that's -- that's interesting.

WILLIAMS: Everything in criminal trials is about what happens later, what could happen if this defendant is convicted. And there was an argument to be made that that "Access Hollywood" tape is itself prejudicial against the defendant.

This isn't really about "Access Hollywood," this trial. This is about a series of transactions to -- to cover up embarrassing conduct. You can make an argument that that's not quite the same, legally, as the "Access Hollywood" tape.

What Trump's lawyers could do down the road is say that, by playing the "Access Hollywood" tape in court, it got in the jury's heads. It confused them about these hush-money payments and really just made Donald Trump seem like a rotten guy that they should have convicted. So --

[06:05:09]

ACOSTA: Yes. I mean, he did get elected, even though --

WILLIAMS: Right.

ACOSTA: -- the "Access Hollywood" tape came out. So I mean, there is that.

But I mean, Lulu, the other thing is "The New York Times's" Maggie Haberman was in that room and reports -- we've put this on on screen -- Trump, quote, "appeared to nod off a few times, his mouth going slack and his head drooping onto his chest. The former president's lead lawyer, Todd Blanche, past him notes for several minutes before Mr. Trump appeared to jolt awake and notice them."

CNN's own reporting, we should note, is that Trump had his eyes closed for several minutes while leaning back in his chair.

I -- you know, what's your sense of this?

LULU GARCIA-NAVARRO, CNN CONTRIBUTOR: So --

ACOSTA: If my question is not making you nod off.

GARCIA-NAVARRO: Yes. Sorry.

ACOSTA: Or is it? Yes, yes, yes.

GARCIA-NAVARRO: Where am I again? It's early.

What I would say is, first of all, he's old, and old men take naps. It was a long proceeding. And so that, I would just say, in his -- in his -- in his defense.

The other thing I would say is this. What is so interesting about this trial -- and I think was a mistake strategically -- is that it is not on television. And so we are relying on the fantastic Maggie Haberman and others who are in the courtroom to tell us this.

But did you see what the defense actually did, and Trump's people actually did? They denied it. They said it did not happen, and that it was lies.

And so at this point, it's not --

ACOSTA: Fake snooze?

GARCIA-NAVARRO: But it's not only Donald Trump who's on trial. It is actually, again, as with everything to do with Donald Trump, reality and truth itself.

And there will be a segment of the population who simply do not believe that he nodded off. If this had happened on television and you were -- we were all playing that tape, it might have had an impact on the way that people perceive this trial. But instead, it is going to again be filtered through the partisan lens.

WILLIAMS: And moreover, he is -- the former president has this tendency to take a fact that's based in some truth, legally or whatever else, and spin it into an absolute lie. And every single one of these small rulings that he wins, he can come out that afternoon and say we won. We're winning this whole trial. Can you understand why we're -- no one understands why we're even here.

ACOSTA: There's some Trumpian silliness going on here. They're going to go after Sleepy Joe. He nods off in court. I mean, what's the point of saying he didn't nod off?

DAVID FRUM, STAFF WRITER, "THE ATLANTIC": Well, the silliness is this claim about high school graduations. There are Internet sleuths who have pointed out that Donald Trump has never attended any of his previous children's high school graduation.

One of the follow-up questions would be the son who's graduation you'd like to attend, what is his name, please? Because Trump often seems to be unaware of the son's name.

But there's a more serious point here. Donald Trump is talking about his presence in the courtroom as if it's a burden to him, as if it's an imposition.

The reason he is there is not because he's being inconvenienced. He's there because it's a right to be in court. It's a right guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment.

And the reason it's compulsory is because American judicial precedent says this right is so precious that, except in the most extraordinary circumstances, it cannot be waived, even by the right-holder himself or herself. You -- you must be there, because it must be seen by all that you have had the opportunity to be confronted, to confront your accusers, to hear the charges in open court, to see that due process is done.

Now, the fact that the right is so precious doesn't and cannot be waived voluntarily doesn't mean it cannot be forfeited by bad behavior.

And I quoted on Twitter this morning a precedent from 1970 were Hugo Black said, look, facing a contumacious defendant, courts have three alternatives. One is to bind and gag him. That is not recommended. But the other two bars are contempt charges, and also that he could be temporarily removed if he behaves very, very badly.

GARCIA-NAVARRO: Word of the day, contumacious. That's all I'm going to say about that.

ACOSTA: Way to go, David. I mean, that's better than fake snooze. And I worked on that.

WILLIAMS: Enemy of the "sleeple." But --

ACOSTA: There you go. But Shermichael -- Shermichael, I did want to go to you, because I mean, this notion that we can't find an impartial juror. It's Donald Trump. Who -- is there anybody on planet Earth who is impartial about Donald Trump?

SHERMICHAEL SINGLETON, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: I just don't see how that's possible.

ACOSTA: Yes.

SINGLETON: I mean, I think that there are a plethora of people who've already made their minds up, not only about this case, but the other three cases. They either believe he's guilty and he shouldn't run for president.

There are some folks who believe he's guilty and it doesn't matter. They're going to vote for him anyway.

But this idea that there are some folks, a sliver of people in the middle who've never heard of Donald Trump, who've never thought about his bad behavior, I think that's almost impossible.

We also have to keep in mind here, people in New York have known Trump way beyond before he got into politics, before he ever ran, before he became president.

ACOSTA: And they have views before all that.

SINGLETON: And so they may have views about him going all the way back to the early 1990s.

GARCIA-NAVARRO: But is it impartial or fair? I mean, this is the thing. Is it impartial or fair?

SINGLETON: Well, I don't think you can be fair.

GARCIA-NAVARRO: And I think you can find people.

SINGLETON: I don't agree with that.

GARCIA-NAVARRO: I think you can find people that are fair.

SINGLETON: I don't agree with that.

(CROSSTALK)

WILLIAMS: Standard. Hundreds of years of American law says that what it needs to be is fair, not impartial.

The mere fact is, if someone comes into court with a prior opinion about a defendant, if they can say upon questioning from the judge, I can set aside my personal views and regard the facts and the law in a manner in accord with American law, that --

ACOSTA: Yes.

WILLIAMS: -- is a perfectly fine and fair juror.

[06:10:07]

SINGLETON: But I would say -- I would just say quickly, though, from a political perspective, when people look at a place like Manhattan that almost voted 80 percent for President Biden, it's almost impossible for people, the average person to presume it's going to be fair.

The same thing would be if this was President Biden, and you were to take him to Kansas in a place that went 80 percent for Donald Trump. People would say, well, how could the president get a fair trial.

WILLIAMS: To Jim's point that, in the United States, we have a Constitutional system that says that where you commit your crimes, you ought to be prosecuted. Enron, O.J. Simpson, Bob Menendez. Any of these people will get fair trials based on the jurisdictions that they're in.

And I think this idea that you have to treat a particular politician with kid gloves just because he's a popular politician is nonsense. That would upset our entire legal system.

And I think it's just really doing dangerous to start saying that merely because someone is a very popular Republican, that they somehow --

SINGLETON: Quickly, it's no different than a person of color in front of an all-white jury. I'd say wait a minute here. Am I likely going to get a fair trial?

Most people of color would probably say I'm not exactly confident in that.

WILLIAMS: OK, well, then what I would say --

SINGLETON: That's just an example.

WILLIAMS: What I would say in response is that the Constitution built in a number of protections against all-white juries.

SINGLETON: The Constitution built in many things that were imperfect.

WILLIAMS: It has never had a provision that said Democrats versus Republicans ought to be, you know, tried certain ways in court. And the simple fact is, you don't have a constitutional protection to be --

SINGLETON: Sure, sure.

WILLIAMS: -- to go to trial against, with jurors only of your political party. And across American history, Democrats have been prosecuted in blue jurisdictions, Republicans in red ones. It's a question of, can the individual jurors, each one, to a juror, answer fairly and honestly that they can be fair in trial.

FRUM: And living in a small town like D.C., I've had the experience of serving on juries many times, which is unusual. But there are very few people in D.C. who can't figure out how to get off jury duty. And I'm one of them.

So I done probably four or five. And I am always struck by how well the process works. And however skeptical you are as a -- both a journalist and a juror at the beginning, it's a kind of small miracle that happens in those courtrooms.

GARCIA-NAVARRO: And people have goodwill. I mean, people do want to do their best for what is actually one of the foundations of our democracy and our legal system.

And so I think it's very dangerous, actually, to start putting this idea in that somehow, if you lean one way or another, that somehow, you cannot put that aside in -- for the greater good.

WILLIAMS: In jurisdictions --

FRUM; I've seen -- I've seen -- I've seen people work through all kinds of minor -- and not be the big prejudices, but minor prejudices, minor assumptions, minor biases, minor habits of thought. And you could see the human -- the human group of six or 12 working through things. And it's a very impressive thing.

And if Donald Trump, as among his many legacies of damage, leaves Americans with the view that they can't trust juries, that's one more harm he's done.

SINGLETON: And I think that goes to my point. I mean, the divisions in the country, in my opinion, would dictate that you would want a larger voter or jury pool beyond just Manhattan, is my point.

So for that skeptical Trump voter who's listening to the former president that's saying, wait a minute here. This is in an area that's automatically against me because of their ideological bend. Well, wait a minute, Mr. President, we're pulling people from all over the city.

GARCIA-NAVARRO: Shermichael, New York is going to come after you. New York is going to come after you.

ACOSTA: It's New York, yes.

GARCIA-NAVARRO: It's New York.

I mean, what I'm saying is I just don't think that that's fair. I think looking at people's voting habits and then saying, like, somehow someone can't get a fair trial there, it really is setting this country up for --

SINGLETON: I hear you, but I am telling you when you talk to those Republican voters who support the former president, which was 80 -- almost 80 million Americans, they don't see it that.

GARCIA-NAVARRO: So you're saying that in Miami, and in the Trump trial in Miami, because it is, you know, leaning -- a leaning Republican state, he's going to get a fair trial. Is that the --

SINGLETON: I think -- I think Republican voters who support Trump, not my opinion. I think those voters would say, yes, we think the former president would get a fair trial there.

When I talk to those voters, that's what I hear constantly.

WILLIAMS: Yes. I think they'll get a fair. They think he gets a fair trial where he's got friendly voters. I think if they don't like it, they ought to get two-thirds of the states, amend the Constitution, and change our entire legal system. You can't be judged --

SINGLETON: I'm just very worried -- I'm just very worried, though that there's a sizable percent of the country that's going to see this in a very negative way. And that division, I don't think we need.

ACOSTA: Yes. All right. Well, guys, I doubt anybody at home is nodding off after the conversation. So keep it up. Keep it up, guys. Thanks a lot.

All right. Coming up next, a case before -- or keeping their eyes closed in a sustained way, I should say. A case before the Supreme Court that could upend hundreds of January 6 verdicts.

Plus, what the Pentagon is saying about Israel's options for retaliating against Iran.

And a Justice Department lawsuit that could change the way you buy concert tickets. That's coming up.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[06:19:25]

ACOSTA: Today, the Supreme Court will hear oral arguments about whether the Department of Justice is allowed to charge January 6 rioters under a decades-old federal obstruction law.

That law, which makes it a crime to obstruct an official proceeding, has been used by prosecutors in over 300 January 6 cases since 2021.

The court's ruling is likely to come down in June and could upend the cases of hundreds of those defendants. And while former President Trump is not party to this case, the ruling has the potential to knock out a number of federal charges that he is facing for plotting to subvert the 2020 election.

My panel is back with me now. Elliott, explain this, and does it imperil Jack Smith's case. do you

think?

WILLIAMS: Against Donald Trump?

ACOSTA: Yes.

WILLIAMS: Probably not. Against others, quite possibly.

So, as you said, obstruction of an official proceeding. Sounds pretty clear on its face.

Now, this was put in place as almost a financial crimes law decades ago under Sarbanes-Oxley. Folks have maybe heard that.

ACOSTA: Oh, yes.

WILLIAMS: That old piece of legislation. Now the question is, when you obstruct, influence or impede an official proceeding, what does that mean?

Now initially, the law was used to go after accountants and other people who obstruct proceedings through what are called corrupt means: lying, deceit, fraud, trickery. The question is, can that be applied to a violent act like January 6?

Now, it's still an obstruction of an official proceeding, but maybe not in the way that the law was originally written.

So the Supreme Court is going to be looking into, No. 1, what was Congress thinking at the time? And No. 2, what are the words that the statute actually say: if you corruptly impede a proceeding, whether you're breaking down a window or whether you're an accountant filing papers in a bad way, can you still be convicted?

And so it's really this legalistic twisting they're trying to parse language, right?

ACOSTA: Yes. Could this potentially pull a thread on the Jack Smith case, do you think, against Trump.

FRUM: Well, one, it also could cast a light on a missing element from many Jan. 6 cases, which is many of the protesters came in buses that the protesters themselves did not pay for.

So we often talk with January 6 as if it were an impetuous act, as if this -- this spontaneous eruption of crowd feeling. But the question is, why were there so many buses laid onto bring people there?

And so, if you want to go into the questions of corruption, that the premise behind the opposition to this statute is that, well, they were just acting in the heat of the moment.

SINGLETON: Yes.

FRUM: But in fact, it does look corrupt. Someone paid for those buses with a pretty good idea of what the people on the buses would do, which is try to overturn an election and, by force and fraud, make the loser of the election somehow the president of the United States.

WILLIAMS: And I want to --

ACOSTA: Go ahead.

WILLIAMS: An important point. Even -- imagine the Supreme Court were to say 1512-C2 -- that's the law -- cannot apply to January 6 protesters. Remember, any number of these people can still be charged under property destruction, trespass, other sorts of violent crimes, all the crimes that you've seen prosecuted already under state and federal law.

So it's not that this is throwing away all of January 6. It's just a small subset of these obstruction of official proceedings for some of them.

ACOSTA: Very important.

All right, guys. We talked so much during the first block, but I've got to save some time here with the bosses. Guys, thanks so much.

Elliott Williams, thank you for being with us this morning.

Coming up next, the world waits on Israel's response to Iran's weekend attack.

Plus day two of jury selection in Trump's hush-money trial. We've been talking about that. What to expect when the former president returns to court.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

ACOSTA: Fears of a growing war escalating in the Middle East this morning, as Israel considers a response to Iran's unprecedented strikes from over the weekend.

New video from Iran state media shows combat drones launching, part of that massive attack that we saw over the weekend.

Joining me now, CNN's senior national security correspondent, Alex Marquardt.

Alex, you know, the Pentagon spokesman, Pat Ryder, said it's up to Israel to choose how they respond. But it seems as though, you know, over the weekend, the president was clearly sending the message, if you do this, we may not be with you. But Israel is making it pretty clear they're going to do something.

ALEX MARQUARDT, CNN SENIOR NATIONAL SECURITY CORRESPONDENT: They are, and Pat Ryder also said in almost the same breath that we are keeping our U.S. military assets that we deployed in anticipation of these Iranian strikes out there. And that's the clearest sign that the U.S. doesn't think that this is over, and that -- and a potential Iranian reaction to whatever maybe coming from Israel could then threaten U.S. troops.

But it is clear that the us hopes that for the moment that this is over, that as we've been told, that Israel takes the win, Israel certainly has, you know, support domestically to do something against Iran.

This is just -- you know, it was a stunning hours-long attack of some 500 projectiles being fired at Israel. But as a senior administration official told me yesterday, the U.S. sees this is kind of the equilibrium being re-established.

You had the Israeli strike against the Iranian consulate in Damascus that killed five senior Revolutionary Guard commanders, including the the guy who's in charge of Lebanon and Syria.

And now you had this Iranian response.

But the way that Israel sees it, is they attacked our homeland with this huge, you know, retaliation. And even though there wasn't any damage, we need to respond to this.

And, you know, Israel now finds itself in a situation it hasn't really felt in the past six months, where it has a fair amount of goodwill. You know, it's come under massive criticism for the war in Gaza. We haven't really been talking about the war in Gaza for the past few days.

ACOSTA: There was a coalition around Israel this past weekend.

MARQUARDT: Including Arab countries, helping, helping defend Israel. And so what Israel does with this goodwill remains to be seen.

But the sense, really, is here in Washington, Jim, this is not a question of when or rather if Israel responds. It's when and how. Because they could do a very overt frontal attack, say, with jets and a bombing run, or they could do something a lot more covert and in the shadows.

ACOSTA: All right, were all waiting to see how that response takes shape. Alex Marquardt, thank you. As always, really appreciate it.

Coming up, day two of Donald Trump's hush-money trial. How it might take a little while now to seat that jury.

Plus President Biden's message to voters in the must-win swing state of Pennsylvania. He'll be out on the campaign trail. Kind of a split- screen we'll be watching today. That's coming up.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[06:30:00]