Return to Transcripts main page

First Move with Julia Chatterley

Day One Of Trump's Hush Money Trial Concludes; Israeli War Cabinet Discussing Diplomatic And Military Options; Israel Postpones Rafah Offensive; Middle East On Edge; Pro-Palestinian Protesters Block Golden Gate Bridge; Middle East Tensions; Oil Market Outlook; Hamas Offered To Release Fewer Than 20 Hostages; Western Leaders Caution Israel; U.S. House Speaker Under Pressure To Pass Israel Aid; Jordan: Netanyahu Diverting Attention From Gaza; Trump's Historic Trial; Picking An Impartial Jury. Aired 6-7p ET

Aired April 15, 2024 - 18:00   ET



JAKE TAPPER, CNN INTERNATIONAL HOST: Thank you so much. You can follow me on Facebook, Instagram, threads X, formerly known as Twitter. Also, on the

TikTok, all of it under Jake Tapper. You can follow the show on X at "The Lead" CNN. If you ever miss an episode of "The Lead," you could listen to

the show once you get your podcast. It's all two hours just sitting out there like a big ripe peach.

Our coverage continues now with Wolf Blitzer in "The Situation Room." I'll see you tomorrow.

JULIA CHATTERLEY, CNN INTERNATIONAL HOST: It's 6:00 a.m. in Shanghai, 8:00 a.m. in Sydney, and 6:00 p.m. here in New York. I'm Julia Chatterley. And

wherever you are in the world, this is your "First Move."

Well, welcome to "First Move," as always. And here's today's need to know. Thanks, but no thanks. Dozens of potential jurors excused on day one of

Donald Trump's hush money trial, the former U.S. president reacting to the charges against him.


DONALD TRUMP, FORMER U.S. PRESIDENT: It's a scam. It's a political witch hunt. It continues. It continues forever.


CHATTERLEY: The Israeli war cabinet discussing diplomatic and military options to respond to Iran's weekend bombardment as both allies and

regional leaders urge caution. Meanwhile, Israel may also be delaying a ground offensive in Rafah.


UNIDENTIFIED MALE: That operation is still on the table. It still needs to be completed for us to be successful in completing our mission against

Hamas and making sure that they never have the powers of government again.


CHATTERLEY: And a pro-Palestinian protest brings San Francisco's Golden Gate Bridge to a standstill. We'll have the very latest on that and plenty


But first, day one of Donald Trump's hush money trial complete. Jury selection kicked off on Monday. More than half of the initial potential

jurors were excused after saying they didn't feel they could be fair or impartial or had scheduling conflicts. Trump has consistently denied the

charges against him and had some accusations of his own to make on Monday.


DONALD TRUMP, FORMER U.S. PRESIDENT AND REPUBLICAN PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: It's a scam trial. If you read all of the legal pundits or the legal

scholars today, there's not one that I've seen that said, this is a case it should be brought or tried. It's a scam. It's a political witch hunt. It

continues and it continues forever. And we're not going to be given a fair trial. It's a very, very sad thing.

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 that make mugged and killed all day long and he's sitting here all day with about 10 or 12 prosecutors over nothing, over

nothing. Over what people say shouldn't be a trial.


CHATTERLEY: And Katelyn Polantz is following the trial for us and joins us now. Katelyn, I think what today at least began to prove is that finding a

neutral jury is going to be a challenge when the defendant, as we saw there, is a former president. He's been in the New York tabloids for

decades and he remains a politically and socially polarizing figure.

KATELYN POLANTZ, CNN SENIOR CRIME AND JUSTICE REPORTER: It will be a challenge, but it won't be impossible. So far in this jury selection

process there's been about two hours of work that the court has done with the prospective jury pool.

They started with 100 possible jurors today coming into the courtroom, and then more than half were let go very quickly because they raised their

hands saying they could not be fair and impartial toward Donald Trump as a defendant, no further questions.

A few others were not able to do it for other reasons, whether they were health care concerns or had some sort of other things on their schedule.

Those are the sorts of things people often get pulled out of a jury pool for.

So, now, the judge is questioning the jurors. Nine have been questioned so far and there has not been any issues for cause to remove them from this

jury pool. Now, there is going to be some opportunity where both the prosecutors and the defense lawyers are able to question the possible

jurors further, ask them more things to try and suss out whether they can be fair or if there's anything in their background that would prevent them

from serving in this jury, if they had some sort of contact with anyone in either of the legal teams or in Trump world previously.

And then, there is always the possibility prosecutors and defense team will strike people not for cause at all, but just because they have strikes,

they have 10 on each side they can do. So, at the end of the day, this ends up being a numbers game where they only need 12 jurors plus about six

alternates seated as part of this jury pool.

It takes a bit of time to figure out who those people are going to be, but they're working from a broad mass of 500 gradually working through this day

by day, back tomorrow morning, right around 9:30 Eastern time.


CHATTERLEY: Yes. So, as you said, it's 18 people in total. Those six alternates, just in case someone on the original jury gets sick or has to

leave, for example, they can slot them in and the case continues.

What we didn't hear, and obviously we saw that the former president was in court all day watching this, is that he came out at the end and said, look,

it's looking like I'm not going to be able to go to my son's graduation. The judge has told me that I'm not allowed to be in D.C. next week when the

Supreme Court is making a presidential immunity decision.

Has the judge officially said to him he can't go to his son's graduation? And what are the rules surrounding whether or not the president actually

has to be there each day?

POLANTZ: Yes, the former president has to be in court every day. That's clear because the judge says he has to be in court every day. There are

possibilities always where Donald Trump could ask to be excused and the judge could allow him that. That's not happening at this time.

Next week is the only thing that the judge has really made clear on this, that Donald Trump has to be in court as a criminal defendant in the

Manhattan courtroom on the day that the Supreme Court hears arguments related to presidential immunity in his other case, also a criminal case

against him in federal court in Washington.

When the Supreme Court hears that, it's very atypical for a criminal defendant to be there in person, and they don't need to be there. It's a

legal argument that the two sides would be making, the Justice Department and his lawyers.

So, the judge was quite clear today. Trump needs to be in court next week. But he didn't say yet if Trump is going to have to miss his son Barron's

high school graduation. That's not until the end of May and so they may come back to that and discuss it again. It's possible the trial doesn't

even go that long.

CHATTERLEY: Yes, there's lots of what ifs here. Katelyn Polantz, thank you so much for that.

OK. So, that was a sense of what took place today in terms of jury selection. If you're still kind of confused or wondering how we got here,

well, here's a refresher on what led to those 34 charges against Donald Trump in this case. Brian Todd has more.


BRIAN TODD, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): It wasn't until almost 12 years after the affair allegedly occurred that the world first learned of the

allegations of hush money payments to Stormy Daniels.

In January 2018, The Wall Street Journal reported that in the weeks before the 2016 election, Donald Trump had arranged a $130,000 payment to the

adult film star to keep her from publicly discussing their alleged 2006 encounter.

Later, former Trump attorney Michael Cohen testified that Trump directed him to make payments to Daniels, "For the principal purpose of influencing

the election" and that Trump later reimbursed him.

Cohen served jail time for campaign finance violations related to the hush money payments and gave jarring testimony to Congress.

MICHAEL COHEN, DONALD TRUMP'S FORMER ATTORNEY: I am ashamed that I chose to take part in concealing Mr. Trump's illicit acts rather than listening to

my own conscience.

TODD (voice-over): Donald Trump has always denied having an affair with Stormy Daniels. In April 2018, Trump was asked by reporters about hush


UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Did you know about the $130,000 payment to Stormy Daniels?


TODD (voice-over): But later in 2018, in an ethics filing, Trump acknowledged reimbursing Michael Cohen for more than $100,000, but didn't

say what it was for. Daniels spoke to Anderson Cooper in a CBS interview about the alleged payment.

ANDERSON COOPER, CNN ANCHOR: Was it hush money to stay silent?

STORMY DANILES, ALLEGES AFFAIR WITH DONALD TRUMP: Yes. I believe, without a shadow of a doubt, in my heart, and some people argue that I don't have one

of those, but whatever, that I was doing the right thing.

TODD (voice-over): That same year, "The New Yorker" magazine detailed reports that Trump had had an affair with former Playboy model Karen

McDougal. She spoke to Anderson Cooper about it.

KAREN MCDOUGAL, ALLEGES AFFAIR WITH DONALD TRUMP: The only regret I have about the relationship that I had with Donald was the fact that he was


TODD (voice-over): The Wall Street Journal reported four days before the 2016 election that the publisher of the National Enquirer tabloid had paid

McDougal $150,000 for the rights to her story shortly after Trump became the Republican nominee for president, but that the Enquirer never published

the story.

DAVID CAY JOHNSTON, AUTHOR, "THE MAKING OF DONALD TRUMP": Catch and kill, that is, pay someone and then kill a story that would be damaging to


MCDOUGAL: I knew the story wasn't going to be printed. They didn't want to hurt him.

TODD (voice-over): Trump has denied having an affair with McDougal. He was indicted a year ago on 34 felony counts of falsifying business records

related to the Daniels hush money payments. He's pleaded not guilty.

Cohen, Daniels, and McDougal are among those expected to be on the witness list for this trial. How credible a witness would Daniels be?

SHAN WU, FORMER FEDERAL PROSECUTOR: She seems like she would make a very good witness. If I were trying the case, I'd be happy to put her on the

stand. What really helps the prosecution here is what she is talking about is all corroborated in the documents.

TODD: Potential jurors will be asked 42 questions, including their feelings about Donald Trump, whether they ever participated in a rally for or

against Trump, and whether they can be fair and impartial. But they won't be asked what party they belong to or who they voted for.

Brian Todd, CNN, Washington.



CHATTERLEY: To the Middle East now. And waiting and watching for what comes next. Israel's war cabinet debating how to respond to a series of

unprecedented strikes by Iran over the weekend.

The cabinet wrapping up another meeting in the past few hours. It's not clear whether any decisions were made, though Israel is promising to "exact

a price." The U.S. president spoke about the tensions for the first time Monday as he hosted the Iraqi prime minister at the White House. President

Biden laid out Washington's priorities.


JOE BIDEN, U.S. PRESIDENT: As you know, Iran launched an unprecedented aerial attack against Israel, and we mounted an unprecedented military

effort to defend Israel. Together with our partners, we defeated that attack.

The United States is committed to Israel's security. We're committed to a ceasefire that will bring the hostages home and preventing conflict from

spreading beyond what it already has.


CHATTERLEY: And Nic Robertson has more.


NIC ROBERTSON, CNN INTERNATIONAL DIPLOMATIC EDITOR (voice-over): In heated debate, Israel's war cabinet facing their toughest decision since October

7th, how to respond to Iran's unprecedented air assault over the weekend. Differences over how and when, not if, dividing them, looking to allies for


BENNY GANTZ, ISRAELI WAR CABINET MINISTER (through translator): Faced with the threat of Iran, we will build a regional coalition and exact a price

from Iran in a way and at a time that suits us.

ROBERTSON (voice-over): At stake, escalation of already inflamed tensions, even regional war, the U.S. urging restraint and recusing itself from


ANTONY BLINKEN, U.S. SECRETARY OF STATE: We have been coordinating a diplomatic response to seek to prevent escalation.

ROBERTSON (voice-over): According to Israeli officials, Iran launched more than 350 drones, crews, and ballistic missiles late Saturday, early Sunday,

60 tons of explosives, most intercepted by Israel and allies.

In a paradigm shift of decades of proxy shadow war with Israel, Iran claiming it has established deterrence following Israel's deadly attacks on

its Damascus consulate two weeks ago and warning Israel and the U.S. against retaliation.

NASSER KANAANI, IRANIAN FOREIGN MINISTRY SPOKESPERSON (through translator): Instead of making accusations, the western countries should appreciate the

Islamic Republic of Iran's restraint and responsible actions toward stability and safety in the region.

ROBERTSON (voice-over): Even Israel's putative ally Jordan, which helped bring down some Iranian missile Sunday, is wary of Israel's next move.

AYMAN SAFADI, JORDANIAN FOREIGN MINISTER: The Israeli prime minister have always wanted to invoke some sort of confrontation with Iran. Now, as the

international pressure in Israel to stop the aggression in Gaza continues, invoking a fight with Iran is something that we believe he thinks could

dilute that pressure.

ROBERTSON (voice-over): In Gaza, after months of mounting international pressure, Israel appearing to delay plans for an offensive in the densely

populated southern city of Rafah and established aid deliveries directly into the malnourished north.

For now, how hard to hit back at Iran and not blow-up relations with allies dominating Israel's political agenda.


CHATTERLEY: And Nic joins now from Jerusalem. Nic, vital questions being asked in that, I think. The one thing perhaps we can all agree on is that

no one wants to see a broader escalation. How probable is it that a diplomatic route and response is utilized in this case, rather than

something broader, particularly in light of what we've heard seems to be a delay in the operation in Rafah in the south?

ROBERTSON (on camera): Yes, although there have been two brigades called up for service in Gaza, and the indications are from politicians in the

military that the Rafah operation is still something on the cards, we heard from the army chief of staff this evening as well, perhaps the clearest

indication of how much the clock is ticking down on a decision by the war cabinet, telling the troops that there will be a response to Iran.

I think what we're going to see is likely some kind of military response, and perhaps quite contained and restricted, aligned with a broader

diplomatic response, perhaps some of it keyed off by the G7 meeting at the weekend there. Certainly, these efforts among Israeli politicians to bring

the international community together to take a tougher line on Iran. So, more sanctions. And also, to designate Iran's IRGC, Islamic Revolutionary

Guard Corps, to designate that as a terrorist organization.


So, I think the two things can happen in parallel. But I say this because Israel's track record is for military deterrence, and they're going to want

to continue to show that they have the ability to reach in the same way that Iran has. But the diplomatic part will be important, and that will

keep allies together as well. That will be their hope and intention.

CHATTERLEY: Nic Robertson, great to have you with us. Thank you for that.

Now, in solidarity with Palestinians on Monday, protesters blocked California's famous Golden Gate Bridge. Police say they carried out

arrests. And now, traffic is flowing once more. Another protest took place along New York's Wall Street and near Chicago's O'Hare Airport. Veronica

Miracle joins us now from San Francisco.

Veronica, I believe this was both lanes of traffic that were blocked for several hours. How many protesters are we talking about?

VERONICA MIRACLE, CNN CORRESPONDENT: It was a significant protest here at the Golden Gate Bridge. 28 protesters were arrested, including six who had

chained themselves to each other and put themselves in front of parked cars that were also part of the protest. This lasted from 8:00 a.m. until about


It was one of about five pro-Palestinian protests across the country today in five major cities across the country, but this one appeared to have the

most significant impact on traffic and the surrounding community. And this wasn't the only protest here in the Bay Area. There was another one that

was happening in Oakland at the same time on the I-880, another major thoroughfare, where protesters there had chained themselves to barrels that

they brought onto the roadway and that lasted also for several hours.

Organizers at that protest saying that they're part of a worldwide collective that wants to support Palestine and they also want to stop U.S.

tax dollars from being spent in Israel. And as we said there were other major protests in major cities across the country including in Chicago

where at Chicago O'Hare International Airport there was an access road that was closed off. And so, there were travelers who had to take their

suitcases and walk themselves all the way into the airport. There was also protests in New York and Miami. Julia.

CHATTERLEY: Veronica great to have you with us thank you. Veronica Miracle there.

All right. Coming up here on "First Move," the outlook for all prices with unprecedented tensions across the Middle East all softer on Monday, but

there's no time for complacency. We'll hear from a global oil strategist on where things go from here.

Plus, the tricky task of picking 12 unbiased jurors in the Trump New York trial. Could you pass the impartiality test and judge one of the most well-

known men in the world? We'll discuss what it takes.



CHATTERLEY: Welcome back to "First Move." And its investors' concerns over rising Mideast tensions that's topping our "Money Move" today. U.S. stocks

began Monday's session higher amid relief that Iran's attack against Israel was neither destructive nor deadly, but concerns of Israel's next move

weighing on sentiment. And shares finished the session lower with the VIX, the fear gauge, the Volatility Index hitting five-month highs.

We also saw a strong U.S. retail sales report that helped push bond yields higher too. So, that added to some of the pressure. Look at the Nasdaq

there, down 1.8 percent.

Now, hostilities between Israel and Iran also weighed on Asian shares with the Shanghai composite bucking the trend, however, up more than 1.2

percent. Gold rising more 1 percent, near record highs, safety assets, the precious metal performing its role as a safe haven in times of global

economic and political uncertainty.

Now, all markets also waiting to see how the situation in the Middle East plays out. Crude prices, which hit a six-month high last week, finished

Monday's session, as you can see down, what, three-tenths to four-tenths of a percent, but they had been down more than 1 percent intraday. The fear is

that all prices will stay higher for longer as the risk of wider conflict remains on the table.

Let's get some context now. Helima Croft is the Managing Director and Head of Global Commodity Strategy at RBC Capital Markets. Helima fantastic to

have you on the show. What's in the price at these levels in terms of geopolitical risk?

HELIMA CROFT, GLOBAL HEAD OF COMMODITY STRATEGY, RBC CAPITAL MARKETS: I mean, I think market participants were very much in wait and see mode going

into the weekend. And then when we had the dramatic missile and drone attacks that did not produce any significant damage or casualty count, a

lot of oil market participant decided that the story was over.

And we were of the view that it was really too soon to fade this story, that we still have to wait and see what Israeli retaliation will look like.

The potential still remains for an escalatory spiral to happen in the region. We will be watching very closely what happens with key waterways

like the Strait of Hormuz. We had a tanker seized actually right before we had the rocket attack.

And so, again, I think market participants are cautiously waiting to see what happens, but I think that we could see significant, you know,

political risks still come into this market.

CHATTERLEY: Investors do tend to react quickly, and I think I agree with you that the assumption coming out of that was this was an attack that 99

percent repelled that actually the sense is that no one wants a war here or broader escalation and therefore it won't happen, which let's hope it

doesn't. But it does seem to be a little bit precipitous.

What about the risk of a diplomatic response, perhaps further sanctions on Iran? What impact would that have? And does it need to incorporate action

arguably from China too? And you can tell me about that, given that they're the biggest buyer of Iranian oil at this moment.

CROFT: I mean, the key question will be, will the White House actually enforce the existing sanctions on Iran on energy, because we have seen a

significant rise in Iranian oil exports over the course of the year. And so, there is an architecture that the White House could actually utilize,

which would essentially say to China's refiners that access U.S. capital markets or deal with U.S.-regulated institutions, you have to make

significant reductions in Iranian oil imports.

We saw this play out during the Trump administration. They used the sanctions architecture to drive down Iranian exports. And the question is,

does the White House really want to go down that path going into an election when they're concerned about rising retail gasoline prices?

And so, the questions I'm really paying attention to is whether the U.S. Congress will force the White House's hand by passing additional

legislation that mandates enforcement of energy sanctions.

CHATTERLEY: Yes. Probability of willingness to do that, a few months out from a presidential election, zero.

CROFT: Well, yes, but that's interesting. Watch congressional Republicans on this. They are the ones really pushing to try to basically force the

White House down. But again, it's unclear whether Chuck Schumer would bring such a bill with Senate vote.

CHATTERLEY: Yes. Only if you agree to aid for the Ukrainians and the Israelis and Taiwan too, there could be a trade-off there.

CROFT: Right.


CHATTERLEY: OK. So, very quickly, Helima, where do you see oil prices going or do you just assume at this stage watch and wait?

CROFT: I certainly would say the fundamental backdrop is now better than many anticipated at the start of the year. Demand is looking more solid.

You have the OPEC process in place. I just returned from a major conference in Switzerland with the world's biggest oil traders, and everyone was

talking about 90 and above even without this big geopolitical story.

So, again, the fundamental backdrop for oil is strong and this geopolitical risk could only take prices higher from here.

CHATTERLEY: Yes. Underpinning. Helima Croft, great to chat to you. Thank you. From RBC Capital Markets there.

CROFT: Thank you so much.

CHATTERLEY: Great to chat.

All right. Still ahead, Iran's attack on Israel could force the U.S. Congress to finally act on overseas aid. As we were just discussing,

lawmakers have been meeting on the issue in Washington. A live report just ahead.

Plus, the global efforts to prevent a wider war.


CHATTERLEY: Welcome back to "First Move." And a reminder of one of today's top stories. The Israeli war cabinet spent several hours on Monday weighing

the response to an Iranian missile attack over the weekend.

No word yet on whether it's reached any kind of decision in response. Israel says it nearly -- intercepted nearly all the missiles and drones

launched by Iran. And Tehran says it was responding to a strike on its embassy complex in Syria two weeks ago.

And a short time ago, we learned Hamas is slashing the number of hostages it's willing to release in a ceasefire deal. That's according to an Israeli

source close to the negotiations. For months, ceasefire proposals have discussed conditions for releasing 40 hostages. In its latest counter

proposal, Hamas now offered to release fewer than 20.

Jeremy Diamond joins us now on this. Jeremy, what more do we know and potential reasons for why they've reduced the number two?


JEREMY DIAMOND, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Well, this is being viewed as a significant step back by the Israelis. An Israeli source familiar with the

negotiations telling me that Hamas has slashed the numbers of hostages it is willing to release over the course of a six-week ceasefire, which would

be the first phase of the potential agreement between Israel and Hamas.

For weeks now, months even, the basis of these negotiations to try and reach a ceasefire deal has been a six-week ceasefire in exchange for the

release of some 40 Israeli hostages with the number of Palestinian prisoners to be determined. But now, Hamas is offering fewer than 20

Israeli hostages to release over the course of those same six weeks.

And it's not just that, Julia. In addition, Hamas also is demanding more Palestinian prisoners be released in exchange for those 20 hostages, and

they're also pushing for more Palestinian prisoners who are serving life sentences in Israeli jails.

A Hamas official, Basem Naim, told me that Hamas has proposed releasing three captured Israelis each week, but he said that no one is talking about

final numbers. So, this is being viewed, again, as kind of a step back in the negotiations, and it comes as these negotiations have been going on for

months now.

There have signs of progress and then signs that the negotiations are stalling. And so, now, this is very much being taken by the Israeli side as

a sense that this not able to move forward at this time.

And so, instead, what Israeli officials are beginning to prepare for is a potential ground offensive in Rafah. The Israeli prime minister has said

that he views that operation as necessary, and with hostage talks appearing to break down or come close to it, that may be what comes next.

But for the moment, I'm told that that ground offensive in Rafah has been put on hold. Leaflets were set to be dropped today, ordering Palestinians

in that City of Rafah to begin evacuating ahead of a planned ground- offensive. That has delayed, though, amid deliberations over how to respond to Iran. Julia.

CHATTERLEY: And the fear, of course, with the hostage situation, it's less about what they're willing to provide and more about they are able to be

provided at this stage. Very concerning. Jeremy Diamond, thank you so much for that report for now.

We're told the U.S. president spoke with Netanyahu this weekend, though we don't know the exact details of their call. National Security Spokesman

John Kirby refused to say if Biden urged restraint in response to Iran's strikes.

Joining us now from the White House is Priscilla Alvarez. But I think that's a fair assumption to make, Priscilla, and they're not the only

nation doing so.

PRISCILLA ALVAREZ, CNN WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: But we do know that the White House has asked or requested that Israel think carefully and

strategically about its next steps.

Now, by all accounts here at the White House, they see this weekend as largely a success for Israel. They were able to take down those missiles

headed to their territory, and there was really no significant damage on their infrastructure.

And while the president has said, and we've learned through this call, told the Israeli prime minister that he should think strategically about his

next steps, he also made clear during a bilateral meeting today that he still supports Israel and its right to defend itself.


BIDEN: As you know, Iran launched an unprecedented aerial attack against Israel, and they mounted an impression on a military effort to define

Israel. Together with our partners, we defeated that attack. The United States is committed to Israel's security. We're committed a ceasefire that

will bring the hostages home and preventing conflict from spreading beyond what it already has.


ALVAREZ: Two top priorities here at the White House, as you heard from the president, is the release of hostages and that temporary ceasefire in Gaza,

but also making sure that this does not become a broader regional conflict. That was really the focus over the course of the weekend, is containing the

risk of that possibility.

Now, the president also met with G7 leaders virtually yesterday, where they talked about a diplomatic response and moving forward with non-military

actions. We learned today from the National Security Council Spokesperson John Kirby that that looks like essentially arranging new multilateral

sanctions that target Iran's missile programs.

But, of course, the big question here is whether the Israeli prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, takes President Biden's advice. We have seen

the public rifts that have opened up over the course of the war in Gaza and where the two have been in disagreement, and sometimes, again, that rift

opening up. So, this is a moment in which we are waiting to see what Israel does next.

Of course, the National Security Council spokesperson was asked today whether the president and the Israeli prime minister will connect again

soon. He couldn't preview any calls. So, that the two would talk again at the appropriate time.


CHATTERLEY: Yes, Prime Minister Netanyahu under great deal of pressure and competing priorities at this moment. Priscilla, great to have you with us.

Thank you. Prisilla Alvarez there.

Now, Jordan, a key player in the Middle East, of course, too, and earlier, the country's foreign secretary exclusively told CNN he believes Israel's

Benjamin Netanyahu is trying to take attention away from Gaza.

Ayman Safadi is putting the onus squarely on Israel to not escalate hostilities any further.


AYMAN SAFADI, JORDANIAN FOREIGN MINISTER: Look, the Israeli Prime Minister have always wanted to invoke some sort of confrontation with Iran. Now, as

the international pressure in Israel to stop the aggression in Gaza continues, invoking a fight with the Iran is something that we believe he

thinks could dilute that pressure and could take attention away from Gaza and focus on this new confrontation.


CHATTERLEY: And joining us now, former U.S. ambassador to Israel, Daniel Kurtzer. Ambassador, good to have you with us. I think there's wide

acceptance now this attack that we saw at the weekend is not something that the Israeli government can simply ignore and move on from. What are you

expecting from them in terms of response, be it military or diplomatic or both?

DANIEL KURTZER, FORMER U.S. AMBASSADOR TO ISRAEL: I think it's hard for Israel to contemplate not responding to the attack. It took out three

senior Iranian Revolutionary Guard generals in Syria and probably expected some response, but the nature and scope of the Iranian attack more than 300

drones and cruise missiles and ballistic missiles indicated that Iran was seeking to really have a very important impact in terms of killing and

destroying property in Israel.

And so, Israel can't ignore this, and I think they're now trying to figure out how and when and what to do and how to it in a way that doesn't incur

further ire from the White House.

CHATTERLEY: Or anywhere else, Ambassador. I mean, the Iranians have made this clear that this is the new normal and how they will respond. I don't

see -- if we do see some kind of military respond, how you play it to avoid a further response and a response to a response and the thing just

continues to escalate. And it's hard to imagine the United States, based on what we've seen and heard, not stepping up in that example to try and quell


KURTZER: Well, I think you're exactly right. The White House's position and I think the position of other countries is that they will not join Israel

in any offensive action but should that occur as a result of this escalatory spiral, I think, it will be impossible for the United States not

to join in.

Certainly, we would join in, in terms of defense, aerial defense. But there are probably scenarios in which the United Sates would support other kinds

of Israeli actions should that become required.

CHATTERLEY: Do you think in broader effort, and I think it's been made very clear whether it's western allies of Israel or regional powers too, the

effort to de-escalate at this moment and the pressure for Israel not to respond perhaps underplays this seriousness of what we saw from Israel

launching 300 drones and missiles towards a sovereign state.

Ambassador, should there be some kind of broader, whether it's G7 or beyond, diplomatic response in light of what we saw this weekend?

KURTZER: I think there has been a tendency to underestimate or to devalue what Iran did, maybe against the backdrop of a growing anger at what Israel

is doing in Gaza, people have tended to devalue what Iran has done against Israel.

Whether that calls for or leads to some greater action against Iran is a much more significant strategic issue. Just today, the former National

Security adviser under President Trump said that the United States should join in an attack on Iran, including against Iran's nuclear facilities. And

I think that's absurd. That would lead us into the kind of all-out war from which we -- it took 20 years to disengage from Afghanistan and Iraq.

But the question you raised is a valid one. Should Iran feel exempt from response for what it did? And the answer is probably not.

CHATTERLEY: Yes, and you raised it a vitally important point as well. It's already being pushed on social media, which is there seems to be a sort of

different desire to respond to defend Israel when we've seen, according to the Hamas health authorities, tens of thousands of people killed in what we

have seen in Gaza.

I wanted to discuss Gaza and the situation there. What we just heard from one of our reporters is the suggestion that Hamas is now with regards

potential ceasefire negotiations, suggesting that they're only willing now to provide 20 hostages rather than the initial 40 that was being discussed.


We're talking three hostages released a week and they want more Palestinians, prisoners released as part of these negotiations too.

Ambassador, can you see a path to some kind of ceasefire or are we further away than ever in light of the events of the last 48 hours, 72 hours?

KURTZER: Well, Hamas is playing a cruel game which they have played for the last six months. The world has tended to focus on the Israeli bombing and

ground campaign. But the taking of hostages, elderly women, the rape and the brutalization of women and children and elderly by Hamas should not be


And so, what we heard today, this idea that they're going to reduce -- they want to reduce the number of hostages to be released, they want a longer

ceasefire, they want more prisoners, including those who have blood on their hands, is just part of a very cruel game.

They know that it impacts the Israeli public, they know that it's causing very significant distress within the Israeli political system and they're

milking it for all that it's worth.

CHATTERLEY: I think one of the other issues for Israel has been the severe criticism that they've come under in addition to the domestic pressure to

your point of I think the cruelty of what's happened since October the 7th and the fact that many hostages are still missing and families are

suffering as a result.

For this period, the spotlight has switched to some degree from Israel to Iran in response to what they did. Is there a way for Israel to harness

this moment, benefit in the court of global public opinion in terms of their response? And if so, how?

KURTZER: I think the Israelis are thinking hard about how to do that, but so far, it has not really worked. You know, they have faced pressure on all

quarters since October 7th, almost daily interaction with Hezbollah, daily interaction with the Iranian Revolutionary Guards in Syria, the Houthis

firing on a maritime shipping in the Red Sea, as well as the situation in Gaza, and they are on the losing end thus far of the public discourse.

So, I think it's going to be hard for Israel to turn that around. The Iranian attack should give the world community some pause, but it's all

going to depend on what comes next. You need to follow what's happening with a scorecard, and if the Israelis react in a way that changes the

narrative, they will again find themselves on the losing end of a public narrative.

CHATTERLEY: Ambassador Daniel Kurtzer, thank you, sir, for your wisdom.

OK. Coming up here on "First Move," the media posts of about 500 prospective jurors will be examined as well as their political persuasions.

More on Donald Trump's hush money trial after this.



CHATTERLEY: Welcome back to "First Move." Donald Trump's historic hush money trial, what got underway today was day one of the trial. Moments ago,

more than half of the first batch of prospective jurors were sent packing. Why? They said they could not be fair and impartial.

Trump, the first former president ever to be tried in a criminal case. He's accused of falsifying business records to cover up hush money payments to

the adult film star Stormy Daniels.

We're joined now by Jeremy Saland who used to serve as an assistant district attorney in Manhattan. So, welcome to the show. Thank you so much

for joining us. Just explain how difficult it is and you believe it will be to find a jury that is impartial and not biased.

JEREMY SALAND, FORMER MANHATTAN ASSISTANT DISTRICT ATTORNEY: Well, I think the response by all those jurors somewhat speaks for itself, right. If you

have so many jurors who just by default are saying, I'm out, that demonstrates it's going to be incredibly difficult. And it's an incredibly

difficult job just not for those prospective jurors because they maybe feel that they're going to be subject to the oversight or ridiculed by the

former president or opinions in politics, the prosecutors and the defense attorney and the judge too really have to make a concerted effort to vet

these people. And that's going to take so much time. It's going to be really, really long process.

CHATTERLEY: I mean, just so that people could understand, 80 percent of people in Manhattan voted for the other guy. So, actually, I was shocked

that only 50 percent of people, to be honest, sort of put the hand up and said, look, I'm really sorry. I know who he is. I've read the tabloids for

the last few decades. Whatever it is that they decide means that they can't be impartial about this decision. I was surprised by the numbers.

Are you surprised by the fact that the judge didn't, as perhaps they would do in an ordinary trial, just say to these people, look, you know, you're a

smart person, you can look at the evidence, you can sort of take your own views out of this, listen to my instruction and carry on, or not even

consideration in this case?

SALAND: Yes, I think here you have to err on the side of caution. I think you really have to see this as an overly politicized and it really pulls on

people's hearts some really adversely and some love him, for lack of a better way to describe it.

But the last thing you want, if you really believe in justice, no matter whether you're wearing blue or red glasses, you have to look at this and

say, he is no less -- you know, he's entitled, no less than you or me or anyone, to proof beyond a reasonable doubt and due process. So, it's so

important that you have the jury that's able to do that. It's not worth putting on a juror who's -- who claim that they will and they won't.

So, I think the judge did a good job, even if it takes a longer time to say, you know what, we're just going to let you go, go to another -- sit on

another trial, sit in another jury. We can't have that here. I think that's a smart move.

CHATTERLEY: How much of an advantage do you think it is that Trump's defense, the former president's defense, has years of testing, testing how

he flies with people all over the country, but specifically in New York as well? They've done this in order to see how he polls with people and what

people react to positively, what they react to negatively.

Just when you're trying to suss out, to your point, those that might say, hey, you know, I don't have any bias here or indeed, perhaps I'm a

Republican and I'm, you know, potentially going to be someone that the defense could use and actually is the opposite. I think you would say a

Manchurian candidate. That was in your notes and I thought that was a good example.

SALAND: I did refer to that. You don't want a Manchurian candidate. And remember, under law in the United States, all it is is one juror, one, one,

and that would hang and cause a mistrial. So, all they need is one juror, the defense, to say this isn't accurate, it's not fair. And then the

reality of it is, if that juror doesn't go along, is the prosecution going to actually take this up a second time?

So, you know, again, Donald Trump's team has a work cut out for him and certain things are going to really blow up on his -- in his face. If you

were to testify, for example, I think that would be a colossal mistake. He'd alienate the jury. He'd have issues with the judge. He certainly could

roll the dice here and ultimately open himself or expose himself to further crime or make admissions.


But at the same time, look at Michael Cohen, look at Stormy Daniels. These people have very real baggage as to their credibility. So, you know, that

fairness is so critical. That willingness to say, I'll set it aside. And it's hard because you think, would I do that? And hopefully, enough people

will do that. Not hopefully. In fact, they better do that so Donald Trump gets a fair trial, whether you love him or you hate him.

CHATTERLEY: Yes, and this is the crucial point. Both sides get 10 strikes where they can say, look, we just don't want this person. We don't have to

explain. But they also have this ability to make an application for cause where they explain something that the person has said, why we think this

makes them biased or despite the fact that they think they cannot be and why we want them out. So, that sort of adds time to this process.

How long do you think it takes to get the 18, the 12 plus the six potential substitutes that are required for this jury to go ahead -- or for this

trial to go ahead?

SALAND: Those 10 preemptory challenges will be used, no doubt, as well as, what you just described as a challenge for cause, if they're going to be

biased and not listen, or something along those lines. It's not measured in hours or days, it is measured in a week or two weeks or more, because it's

going to be really arduous, as we keep on saying, to find those jurors.

And I think that they are going to be in real-time trying to vet them and say, let me look at social media. Let me see how they interact. Because

once these defense team and the prosecution start asking the questions, it's not going to be bland. What do you think? Do you agree? You do not

agree? It's an interaction, an understanding, will they follow the law? Will they stand up for their beliefs? Will it work well with other jurors?

Would they listen to the evidence? It is really a difficult task in this case, more so than any other case probably ever in the history of New York.

CHATTERLEY: Yes. It's so important, to your point, to get a fair trial because the danger is then an appeal comes back to this process, so they

have to get it right. Great to chat to you, Jeremy. Thank you so much. Former Manhattan Assistant District Attorney there, Jeremy Saland.

Now, from the trials of Donald Trump to the tribulations of those invested in his social media platform. Shares of Trump Media, the parent company of

Truth Social fell 18 percent on Monday. They closed below $30 a share for the first time ever. It happened after the company said it could sell

millions of additional shares, a move that would raise more money for the firm, but of course dilute the value of the shares now on the market. And

that obviously is the reaction.

Trump Media stock, which rose above $70 per share when it started trading last month, has since fallen some 60 percent.

All right. Stay with CNN. I'll have a check of the other international headlines when we return.


CHATTERLEY: Welcome back to "First Move" with a brief look at more of the international headlines this hour.


Multiple people were stabbed just outside Sydney in an attack that police are calling a potential terrorist act. The stabbing took place at a church,

a bishop and others were wounded. A suspect was, however, arrested. Monday's stabbing followed another just two days earlier at a shopping mall

also in the Sydney area. There, six people were killed in an attack that appeared to target women.

And a fourth victim has been recovered at the site of Baltimore's Francis Scott Key Bridge. Officials did not disclose the victim's name at this time

at the family's request. Six construction workers lost their lives when a container ship collided with the bridge and then caused it to collapse.

The armorer of the film "Rust" has been sentenced to 18 months in prison for voluntary manslaughter. Hannah Gutierrez-Reed was found guilty in the

2021 fatal shooting of cinematographer Halyna Hutchins. The film star, Alec Baldwin, is expected to stand trial on a similar charge in July.

And that just about wraps up the show. Thank you for joining us. I'll see you tomorrow.