Return to Transcripts main page

Inside Politics

Trump Lashes Out At Judge, D.A., Biden On His Way Into Court; Now: Potential Alternate Jurors Being Questioned Inside Courtroom; 12 Jurors, One Alternate Have Been Sworn In; Day 4 Of Jury Selection In Trump Hush Money Trial; U.S. Official To CNN: Israel Struck Inside Iran Overnight; U.S. Official: "We Were Not Involved" In Israel's strike. Aired 12-12:30p ET

Aired April 19, 2024 - 12:00   ET

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

[12:00:00]

DANA BASH, CNN HOST, INSIDE POLITICS: Welcome to Inside Politics. I'm Dana Bash. Jury selection is nearly complete in the case the people of the state of New York versus Donald J. Trump. 12 jurors and one alternate have been sworn in. Right now, Juan Merchan and lawyers from both sides are trying to fill up the panel with five more alternates.

Trump is inside the room. And we're told that he's been looking right at jurors as they answer questions and whispering with his attorney. Now, if you were wondering about his mood on the way in, roll the tape.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DONALD TRUMP (R), FORMER U.S. PRESIDENT AND 2024 PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: This is a rigged trial, it's coming from the White House. New York is going down as a very corrupt place to do business. I can tell you a lot of people are not going to be moving to New York. This will go on for another four or five weeks and it's very unfair.

People know -- and people know it's very unfair. I have to be released from the gag order. They've taken away my constitutional rights to speak and that includes speaking to you. I have a lot to say to you. And I'm not allowed to say.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BASH: OK. Again, there's no evidence that this is coming from the White House. And what you just heard was him speaking. He's just limited in the things that he can say about the judge and the judges' family because of things that he has said on social media.

Now, going back to what's happening right now. If the jury selection situation wraps up today, opening statements are expected on Monday. It will be a trial. The likes of which this country has never seen before.

CNN's chief legal analyst Laura Coates is still live in front of the Manhattan courthouse. Laura, what's happening right now? LAURA COATES, CNN ANCHOR & CHIEF LEGAL ANALYST: What a day this has been. We are that much closer to getting the 18 jurors that are needed. That's the 12, plus the six alternates. Who those alternates by the way might very well be needed over the course of the next several weeks by this trial goes on.

We know now that the questioning will be the same for the alternates. They have the same standards they must meet as being not only qualified to be on the jury. They'll have the same questioning, the same voir dire. Lots of details about whether they could truly be impartial, reading a lot of questions from the prosecution.

And of course, then the defense on this issue will have about 25 minutes per total to talk to the entire jury pool of alternate who will also be seated. The jury alternates, they are aware likely that they in fact will be alternate to they will have the same requirement to be attentive and to listen, because they might have to assume the role of one of the deliberating jurors.

At the end of the conclusion of this trial. We know that if this wraps up this morning, later on today, they'll have the examination what's known as a Sandoval hearing, a phrase you're going to hear a lot. That's just lawyer speak for.

I want to give the defendant notice of what might come up. Should he choose to testify? They laid out a number of categories that might be included in that realm. And so, he'll have that hearing later on today with an eye towards that only -- especially opening statements on Monday. But also, the gag order hearing that has not been resolved yet, that will happen on Tuesday.

I want to bring in right now Kristen Holmes, she has got some breaking news for us about what at least one juror is saying about the pressure. Kristen, what are we hearing?

KRISTEN HOLMES, CNN NATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Yeah. This is really fascinating because it goes to show you just how intense this process is for some of these people. They believe that they could be fair and impartial. They believe they could sit on this jury. They have set through rounds of questioning. And now we have one juror who is waiting to see if they will become an alternate.

And this isn't the -- basically the prosecution is now doing their questioning, 30 minutes of questioning. She began crying when she was handed the microphone during the questioning. And said I'm sorry. I thought I could do this. I wouldn't want someone who feels this way to judge my case, either. They went on to say, I don't want to feel like I've wasted someone's time. This is just so much more stressful than I thought it would be.

And this is really indicative of what we are seeing here. And just (inaudible) profile this case is. And what it means to some of these jurors to be sitting in the room with Donald Trump, a former president. We know that he is sitting there, yes, he is looking at some of the jurors with the times. He's going through paperwork. At times he's leaning back in his chair. But we've heard from a lot of these jurors that have been dismissed with him, later talked about their experience was just how shocking it was to be that close to him. And also, the pressure of understanding that this is going to be covered by the media so closely, that understanding who this defendant is. What this could mean moving forward?

And so, this just gives you a real embodiment of why these alternates are so important. Yes, she hadn't been chosen to be an alternate yet. But you can see, we're not even at the beginning stages. She had gone through several different iterations, been asked multiple times if she could be fair and impartial. And essentially, broke during this questioning because it is so stressful. And that is something that could happen again to various jurors as we move forward.

COATES: I mean, the elephant in the room truly hair, Dana, is the fact that you've got a presidential candidate. The fact that a prosecutor talked about this not being about Trump, being a former president, not being about -- being a candidate for the presidency. It's not about popularity. It's not about who you're going to vote for. They said it's about whether the evidence proves he's guilty beyond a reasonable doubt with the crimes he's been charged with. This is the fascinating morning, Dana?

[12:05:00]

BASH: I cheer as, wow. What a scene that Kristen just described. Let's talk more about this with Carolyn Cook. She is a lawyer and jury consultant. Also, our very own chief legal correspondent Paula Reid. Thanks so much both of you. I want to start with you. I mean, you have been through many, many scenarios where you have jury selection going on.

Nothing, of course, quite like what we're seeing now with a former president who by all accounts is staring right at the jurors and the potential jurors, which I'm sure is something that they have not witnessed before. And certainly, they have not felt before this particular potential alternate crying, saying that she thought she would be OK. And she doesn't think she can be impartial.

CAROLYN KOCH, LAWYER & JURY CONSULTANT: Yeah. Well, you know, the great thing about the jury system is it works. And that's a perfect example of somebody who is taking her duty seriously. Giving it a lot of thought. And wanting to be a fair person and being honest about the fact that you can't handle it.

And that's what I mean, honestly, I've seen so many different situations with lay peoples approaching important cases. They're up to the task of standing up to big corporations, standing up to the government. They do the right thing. And so, I think is encouraging, and should be encouraging to the defense and to the government to see jurors feeling that they can admit when they can't do it.

BASH: And others, of course, saying that they can do it and they feel that they can be impartial. PAULA REID, CNN CHIEF LEGAL AFFAIRS CORRESPONDENT: Yeah, absolutely. This has moved a lot faster than a lot of experts and even members of both sides. So, the two teams expected. We are on track, as the judge expected to begin on Monday. And there were some folks who were suggesting that this could potentially take weeks. So, it does appear that they have been able to for now see the jury, now they're just going to say the alternates.

BASH: Let me take a broader look at what this jury looks like so far. And we're just going to talk generally about their jobs, right? Salesperson, investment banker, corporate lawyer, security engineer, English teacher, software engineer, civil litigator, retired wealth manager, speech therapist, physical therapist. First thing I'm thinking is this is very Manhattan, right, which is what you -- what you want. You want a jury to represent the people in the place in which this trial is happening?

KOCH: Well, yes, in theory. I mean, that's the way the rules apply. But I don't think that's what the defense wants. And you know, it's just interesting because the prosecutor is saying to the jury pool. When he has his time to do the questions, he's actually really just lecturing them, which is really not voir dire. He's telling them what to think. This is not about politics. This is not about who you're going to vote for.

Well, it really is. And the jurors know that. That's why they're brave. That's why people are saying I can't do this, because they know it's bigger than just what's in front of them. And so, I just think that that having a balance of power is important. And that even though this jury is representative of Manhattan, it's not really representative of the rest of the country. However, I think it's a good cross section. And from Trump's perspective, I think I would be OK with who those people are.

BASH: Yeah. You know, I'm glad you said that because that is when you talked about, it not necessarily being something that the defense is quite happy with. And that of course, has been Trump's -- one of Trump's arguments going into this and his lawyers as well that it's Manhattan. I'm never going to get a fair trial. It's Manhattan, of course is not the most conservative island in the world.

Then I just want to dig deep specifically on one of the jurors, Paula. Juror 11. She is somebody that Trump's legal team wanted out. She's not married, doesn't have kids, works for a multinational apparel company, does not like Donald Trump's quote, persona. Only reads headlines and industry specific publications. What are you hearing from the Trump team?

REID: So, they clearly tried to remove this person. The judge rejected that on the law. She said she could be impartial. So, the judge is correct. But it was a little surprising. I've talked to some sources that she was not removed because this does open an avenue of attack for the former president.

He has to be careful because this is a juror, but this is certainly something that they're going to bring up on appeal. They are reserving every single issue. This issue of can they get a fair -- a fair jury, right? They fought to get that specific number of how many people said at the outset, I can't even be impartial, I got to go, right? Because they wanted to show how difficult it is in this venue.

Then you see someone like this, getting on the jury after she called him selfish, and I believe self-serving, you know, the graphic (Ph). But that did surprise me that the judge let her stay even though you know that this is going to be an issue, not only the court of public opinion, but in a possible appeal if there's a conviction.

[12:10:00]

BASH: Let's put that up. He just seems very selfish and self-serving, so I don't really appreciate that in any public servant. So, I don't know him as a person. So, I don't know how he is in terms of his integrity. It's just not my cup of tea.

KOCH: Yeah. It's an awkward position to be in when you're the defendant and you have to -- you're being forced to either use a strike. And it was -- when they ran out of strikes.

REID: I believe so because it's very close to the end. And they were trying to remove her for cause, I believe so. But it was very chaotic. That's all happened really quickly. But I think that was part of the issue.

KOCH: Well, if I were in that situation, and I had, you know, two strikes left, I'm like saving my strikes for the worst of the worst. And that's a big disadvantage the way they did this jury selection because you can't see all the dented apples at once. So, you don't know if tomorrow is going to be worse than today.

I would probably live with her too because people -- he isn't people cup of tea. He knows that. And he's not trying to curry favor with anyone. I mean, that's sort of his -- you think he would behave a little bit more with a judge, but he doesn't because he is who he is.

BASH: Well, on that note, Paula, I got to ask you about the fact that the Assistant District Attorney Joshua Steinglass is saying that he is not going to let the defense know ahead of time, which witnesses are going to be brought once the trial starts, presumably that will happen next week.

And when Blanche who -- Todd Blanche, who is Trump's lawyer, proposed that he would assure the district attorney's office that Trump would not post about the witnesses, if they shared their witness list. The judge responded. I don't think you can make that representation.

REID: So, they're the judges not only saying no, I'm not going to force them to give you the witnesses, but also, I don't think you have control over your client. So not great for the defense team there. These are the legal consequences of these political attacks, right?

If you are not abiding by the gag order, the district attorney's office says, look, we're not going to -- we're not going to extend the courtesy that we normally would to give you these witnesses. And this is something that I'm sure is very frustrating to the Trump lawyers because they would love to know who was coming down the pipe, so that they can adequately prepare. But the district attorney's office clearly that is an argument, that is a fear that is well founded, the judge agreed.

BASH: And I should say -- first of all, thank you both. I should say that there will be a hearing on the gag order that is in place that he -- the former president is maybe wanting a little bit, that's going to happen next week. Thanks so much for your expertise. Always good to see you, Paula.

And coming up. Is this it? New images exclusive to CNN show the aftermath of Israel's retaliation inside Iran. The question hanging over the entire world now. Will Iran ratchet up already sky-high tensions in the Middle East? Stay with us.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[12:15:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BASH: Right now, tortured uncertainty about what happens next in the Middle East. The U.S. official confirms to CNN that Israel struck inside Iran. It's a daring move. And the question now is whether this back and forth will continue or even escalate into an all-consuming regional war? Or the fairly limited nature of the response may have found a Goldilocks way through the trickiest of crises that we have seen in the region in years.

The strike happened here near Isfahan, and that is a military base. U.S. officials tell CNN, the target was non-nuclear. The U.S. was told ahead of time. But a senior official says, the Biden administration did not bless the strike.

Let's get straight to CNN's Jeremy Diamond, who is in Israel. Jeremy, what are you hearing from sources inside the Netanyahu government?

JEREMY DIAMOND, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Well, Dana, the Netanyahu government as well as the Israeli military are completely silent on these overnight strikes. And that is very much intentional. As we've been talking over the course of the last week about the ways in which the Israeli government might be able to thread the needle here, both ensure that that attack by Iran over the weekend, the first in its of its kind on Israeli soil would go on -- would not go unanswered.

But also at the same time, trying to avoid escalating this conflict between Israel and Iran into a full-blown war. And it appears here that they have actually managed to thread that needle and the lack of public fanfare around this is very much a part of achieving that goal.

We have heard from the Iranians last night, hours before this strike actually took place. They had indicated that an Israeli attack on Iranian soil would result in an immediate and overwhelming response by Iran, targeting Israel. And so far, that hasn't happened. And in fact, a regional source -- intelligence source has told us that there is no indication now that that tit for tat between Iran and Israel is going to continue, suggesting that Israel may have achieved the right balance here in terms of sending the message that it felt it needed to send, while avoiding further escalation here.

Now, in terms of the United States, what we are hearing from them is a continued focus on not on what happened overnight from Israel, but rather on Iran's attack over the weekend. And that was also a goal of this Israeli response was that to ensure that any Israeli response wouldn't detract from what has begun to happen over the course of the last few days.

[12:20:00]

And that is a growing international coalition. Forming once again to isolate Iran, to hold Iran accountable as the Secretary of State Tony Blinken said today. And that is also very much something that Benjamin Netanyahu would like to see continue, and in this way, it seems like it will be able to continue. Dana?

BASH: Oh. Such great reporting. So many layers of important nuance there. Jeremy, thank you so much. Here to continue talking about this moment and the consequences, CNN military analyst, retired Major General Spider Marks, and founding partner and Washington correspondent for Puck News, Julia Ioffe. Thank you so much for being here both of you.

General Marks, I will start with you. Talk about what we saw overnight from a military perspective.

MAJ. GEN. JAMES "SPIDER" MARKS, U.S. ARMY (RET.) & CNN MILITARY ANALYST: Well, this was an attack by Israel very clearly against a military target. So, I think the definition of proportionality is at play here. I think it works. Israel went after the delivery capabilities that the Iranians used last Saturday night. This was an attack against missile production, missile capability. It was an airbase. It's got military ground capability, and it was not as reported an attack against Isfahan nuclear enrichment capability and research and development capability.

Really, this is all about deterrence. And deterrence is all about trying to convince a potential adversary on aggressor, that there's a better alternative than going to war. And in the case of what took place last Saturday, Israel demonstrated deterrence. The Iranians failed dramatically. I think it's fair to say that it was feckless, it fell on its face, it did nothing that Iran was hoping it might do.

On the other hand, Israel has now responded to Iran. And does Iran feel like it has achieved a level of deterrence. So, this is where we are right now about what's going to take place in terms of next steps.

BASH: And Julia, it talks about the sound of silence from both the Biden administration and Jeremy's reporting, largely from the Netanyahu government. We'll put (inaudible) aside for a second who is very right wing and called it lame or something to that extent. But just picking up on the deterrence idea that General Marks talked about, the intentional quiet response from the Biden administration, in particular. What does that tell you?

JULIA IOFFE, FOUNDING PARTNER & WASHINGTON CORRESPONDENT, PUCK: Well, it tells me that the two allies, Israel and U.S. have different objectives and different interests here. For the Biden administration, it was very clear to signal very loudly, which it did through various leaks to the press. That it was not interested in this becoming a wider regional war. That it did not want Israel to retaliate, and that it did not back Israel's retaliation against Iran. Nor did it, you know, guarantee Israel its help if Israel went further in this right. So, kind of distancing itself.

Israel felt that had an interest in providing some kind of deterrence. Again, this was an unprecedented attack on Israeli soil, which itself was a response to an unprecedented attack by Israel on a diplomatic facility, whether or not the shingle had been hung up two weeks before not under the Vienna Convention, it's still considered a sovereign Iranian territory.

So, Israel felt it had to respond somehow, but also calibrate its response in a way that wouldn't alienate the U.S. more than it already has in the last six months. So again, you're seeing, you know, allies don't always have total overlap in terms of their interests and their priorities.

BASH: And General, I want to read you a quote from Sima Shine, former Mossad head of research. This is a quote given to the New York Times today. The way they present it to their own people -- this is speaking about Iran. And the fact that the skies are open already, allows them to decide not to respond. Can you kind of take it from there and explain what that means with regard to the positioning and posturing that we're seeing now?

GEN. MARKS: Yeah. I think what it says is that Iran understands Israel's got an incredible capability militarily. They are comfortable operating on multiple lines of effort, right? We got stuff going on in Gaza. Hezbollah is routinely there. Israel has some internal political things they have to deal with. And now they can conduct a strike. And we haven't gotten into the details because we don't know the details of what the strike looks like.

I mean, did the aircraft, fast mover transit over Iran? Did it make it without any kind of detection? I would assume it did. But we'll have to piece that together. So, Iran understands that it is dealing with a very capable adversary in the form of the IDF. They're going to remain silent.

[12:25:00]

What I would also say if I can comment very briefly is, I don't know this. But the U.S. silence indicates to me that they were apprised of what was going to take place. And that's why I think we saw the secretary of state earlier today was very, very silent. He didn't answer any of those questions. And you have to assume United States understood, didn't approve. They weren't in the decision loop. But they understood what was going to take place in the nature of the attack.

BASH: Just real quick. I see you nodding your head, Julia.

IOFFE: Yeah. No, I agree with the Major General that the U.S. again didn't approve but was appraised. I think it would have been very much in Israel's interest to appraise Washington of what it was about to do. But to me, it's also very -- you know, classically Iran.

Think about what happened after the U.S. strike that assassinated General Qasem Soleimani, who was a much bigger deal than the two generals that were assassinated by Israel earlier this month, right? Is Iran talked a really big game about how this man had been murdered, about how it was going to retaliate.

And in the end, it sent a dozen cruise missiles at a U.S. base in Iraq. They mostly landed in open fields. They were -- you know, and Iran said, OK, we're done retaliating. They talk a really big game, but they're not willing to escalate it to the point of a major war.

BASH: All right. Thank you so much, both of you for your insight, your expertise, your reporting, all of it. I really appreciate it. And up next. A key foreign aid package advances with help from Democrats. But can House Speaker Mike Johnson hold on to his job, a key Republican Congressman will be here, next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)