Return to Transcripts main page

Quest Means Business

FAA Reviews Boeing's Plan To Reset Safety Culture, Jury Deliberating For Second Day In Trump Hush Money Trial; WSJ: Trump Considering Advisory Role For Elon Musk If Re-Elected; Jury Finishes Second Day Of Deliberations In Hush Money Trial; Jury Reaches Verdict In Trump Trial. Aired 4-5p ET

Aired May 30, 2024 - 16:00   ET



RICHARD QUEST, CNN INTERNATIONAL HOST: Closing bell ringing on Wall Street, it is almost a repeat of yesterday when we had that large sea of red with

no change really. They just hit the gavel. The trading is finished.

Today, we're off 330 points. We are tallying the month so far, and it is like we're down about 1,200. So a down day for the US markets. Those are

the markets and the main events that we are following on a very busy day.

US regulators say they expect systematic change -- systemic change from Boeing as the company presents its new safety plan.

Eleven hours and counting, the jury in the Trump hush money trial continue their deliberations.

And Gene Simmons from Kiss on the band's digital avatars on whether there is such a thing as enough money.


GENE SIMMONS, KISS: While you're alive, your ideas to make more, even if you can't use it, you're a job creator. You can get a line for a fee. There

is no such thing as enough.

Enough is when your dead.


QUEST: Live from New York on Thursday, May the 30th. I'm Richard Quest. In New York, as elsewhere, I mean business.

Good evening.

US regulators say Boeing has a plan to improve its safety culture and must now prove that that plan works before being allowed to increase production.

The FAA administrator, Mike Whitaker has held a three-hour meeting with Boeing executives when they reviewed the so-called roadmap to safety. The

administrators says the agency will be making sure Boeing follows through on all the key steps.

The company was forced to develop this plan after the door plug blew out mid-air on a 737 MAX. The FAA has since halted expansion of the 737

assembly lines and put various restrictions on Boeing.

David Soucie is a former FAA safety inspector and a CNN safety analyst. David is with me now.

So I mean, you have a plan, you put it forward. The best of plans are useless if they're not executed properly, so is that what the FAA is really

going to be looking at?

DAVID SOUCIE, CNN SAFETY ANALYST: Yes, it is Richard, but again, the FAA before has done this sort of thing, and they look at it as a project. They

have to get out of that mindset. A project has a beginning, a middle, and an end. That's not what they need to do here. That's not a fix. It is a

systematic change.

Its systemic -- everything has to be looked at but as a big program that they do, it doesn't just go away. They wanted to see if they can actually

pull that off.

QUEST: I sort of love the way the FAA is delving into Boeing's plan as if sort of their hands are clean. I mean, they were I think, as you say,

asleep at the switch. They didn't notice that Boeing had gone awry.

SOUCIE: Which is -- it makes no sense at all to me, Richard, it is kind of like a bait and switch here. The FAA did not do their job. They didn't do

everything they were supposed to do after the two Max air crashes. So now, they are coming back and saying, oh, well, Boeing, what are you going to do

about it?

Well, what is the FAA going to do about it? This plan is great. Let's put it in. But let's see what the FAA is going to do.

QUEST: Now, we know over decades that Boeing makes excellent planes -- safe, comfortable, profitable, very few problems.

So the trick and test here is how they get back to that.

SOUCIE: Yes, that is it, Richard and I think to me what I see in the plan and I've just received another update on that plan from Boeing, just before

talking with you, it looks like they really please have a motivation. They really are going to do things differently now, but then it gets back to the

safety culture idea.

How do you measure a safety culture? It is not by how many accidents who have.

QUEST: But David, what can you -- I mean, you obviously know more about the plan. You've seen versions of it. What can they put in it? I mean, that is

not obvious and you would expect, but then the way in which it can be monitored.

Let's take the plug door for example. Who removed the plugs? Why they weren't replaced? And why there was no decent paper record that told

everybody about it, to the point where Boeing had to admit to Congress that they didn't know.


SOUCIE: Yes, you have to go back to the causal factor, Richard, and that case of the door plug, as well as others, that started at some singular

point, and that singular point has to do with the quality of the parts coming in. And you can just say, hey, we are going to expect every part

coming in to be perfect. It is not that way.

Now, here is the rub. Here is what they're doing different. They're not just going to say, okay, were going to allow this part to come in, and if

it is wrong, we are going to try to fix it on site. They're not going to do with that anymore. They're done with that. There is a black and white.

It either meets our requirements and we are going to use it or it does not, and we are going to send it back. That's the fine line. That's the black

and white that they are saying there going to do and that will make a huge impact and will stop all of these things from happening.

QUEST: It is fortuitous that we are talking to you tonight because next week, I will be in Dubai where IATA, the aviation organization for the

airlines is holding its annual meeting and safety is very much of course, as always on their minds.

We've had the Singapore turbulence. We had the Qatar turbulence. Do you think there needs to be some reviews here?

SOUCIE: Yes, there does. And I think IATA has to be the catalyst behind the new technology, this infrasonic technology that allows us to see what is

going on with turbulence specifically, that should be one of their top things that they're looking at is how do we implement this?

We have now have the capability to see what is going on in that air ahead of us, and we need to do that. There are people being injured and even

killed in these high turbulence issues .

QUEST: David Soucie, it is always good to see you, sir. I'm grateful. Thank you.

The jury in Donald Trump's historic and unprecedented trial is now in its second day of deliberations. Jim Sciutto has the latest.

What has happened today?

JIM SCIUTTO CNN ANCHOR: Well, they are still at it. The jury has now been delivering for 11 hours in total, over two days, 11 hours, 12 minutes as

you can see on our clock there.

Earlier in the day, they did have the judge reread parts of his quite long, quite complicated instructions back to them. Court reporters also read back

portions of testimony from Michael Cohen and from David Pecker, the publisher of the "National Enquirer."

The testimony had to do with meetings between Pecker and Donald Trump, and as prosecutors laid it out, a meeting in which they hatched a plan to catch

and kill stories that might be damaging to the president. We don't know when a verdict will be reached, but it could be reached at any moment.

Jessica Schneider is in Washington, DC. We are past four o'clock, and oftentimes over the course of this trial around four or 4:30, the jury has

been dismissed for the day.

Do any sense of how long today's deliberations will go?

JESSICA SCHNEIDER, CNN JUSTICE CORRESPONDENT: Well, you're reading my mind, Jim, because our reporters in the courtroom have actually just alerted us

that prosecutors are now entering the courtroom. So presumably, they're noting the time as well.

Typically, the jury has wrapped up by 4:30. However, I will note the judge had said that if the jury wants to work late today, they can. They would

likely only work as late at 6:00 PM.

So I would say that you're right. In the next few minutes, I would guess that we will get some sort of word from either the judge or the jury as to

whether they want to wrap up by 4:30 and continue deliberations tomorrow, or if they're at a point, maybe that they want to work a little bit longer.

I think it is just a matter of if they are at a good point in the day and a good point in their deliberations where they can stop or if they feel like

they want to extend it a little bit more.

So we are waiting here how much longer they might be working. It could be 4:30, it could be a little later. So we will see. They have got a lot to

sift through.

SCIUTTO: And we don't know of course, what that might mean. I mean, they might decide to break for the day just because it is time for a break and

or they might decide to extend without signaling that they are close to a decision.

SCHNEIDER: Yes, I think that what we've seen from this jury, what they've requested for a read back is that they are very intricately going through

the evidence in this case.

We heard the read back from four different pieces of testimony involving David Pecker and Michael Cohen, and then the hush money schemes, especially

as it related to Karen McDougal, the Playboy model who was paid off by the "National Enquirer." They never actually got repaid by Donald Trump.

So we are seeing them work through this. They've also got a recap of the jury instructions first thing this morning. So you're right, we won't know

really what point they are at or how far along they are or how close to a verdict they are, depending on if they decide to break at 4:30, it just

might be a natural breaking point for them.


So in the next few minutes, we will likely find out how much longer the deliberation today will go, but it is a good bet, I would say that we are

probably going to go into tomorrow for more deliberations.

SCIUTTO: Which is not out of bounds with as a lot of the reads of this or expectations.

Jessica Schneider, thanks so much.

Coming up, Trump reportedly considers teaming up with Elon Musk, a potential role Musk could take on should Trump return to the White House.


QUEST: Donald Trump is apparently considering a role for Elon Musk in his administration if he wins this November.

According to a report in "The Wall Street Journal," the possible advisory role would see Musk giving his input on border security and economic

policy. Elon Musk has since denied that any discussions about such role have taken place.

Clare Duffy is with me. She is here in New York. Who would benefit most, I found the most interesting aspect of this because though the reports are

that this has been discussed Musk says, he hasn't. We don't really know where the truth is, somewhere in between, but who would benefit most?

CLARE DUFFY, CNN BUSINESS WRITER: Well, it is an interesting question, Richard. I think at this point in the campaign, Trump probably stands to

benefit the most and you will understand why he would want to curry favor with someone like Elon Musk. He is looking for donations.

Elon Musk is one of the richest people on the planet. He also has this massive platform in X, where he could influence peoples votes. He hasn't

yet said who he will support in November, and so it makes sense why Trump would be looking to him for potential support and potentially dangling this

offer of an advisory role in his administration if he were re-elected.

But I think if we do get to the point that Trump is re-elected, Elon is offered a position like this, Elon certainly stands to benefit

significantly from this. His empire of companies -- Tesla, SpaceX, in particular rely on government contracts, government support, government

policy, especially in terms of electric vehicles for Tesla and space policy for SpaceX.

And so if Elon did have an ear to the president, that's a huge benefit for him and his companies.


QUEST: See that's the problem of conflict in a sense. It wouldn't be the first time that a businessman or woman has adjunct itself to the

government, but here, he has so many issues from the Tesla and regulatory to SpaceX. Some would say, it is a stretch too far.

DUFFY: Yes, it is a really important question, and I think the question is, what exactly would this advisory role look like? Elon actually served on

two business advisory councils in the previous Trump administration briefly before exiting those councils over Trump's decision to pull out of the

Paris Climate Accord.

So the question is, would it look like that? There is sort of a formal guidelines for how business leaders can advise government -- government

leaders, the leader of the United States or is this sort of a more deeply involved position where the issue of conflict of interest could come into

play and Elon could potentially be asked to step back from some of his companies, which I can't imagine him doing.

QUEST: I can't imagine a scenario where conflict doesn't come into it, because the companies -- I mean, let's just take the giga projects for the

batteries that he is now going to -- he has built across the United States where some people are saying that Tesla is more of a utility company

providing energy for these batteries rather than a car company.

Wherever you look, there is conflict.

DUFFY: Yes, absolutely. I mean, all of his companies really sort of rely on government support. I mean, even something like Neuralink is going to need

regulatory support and a number of Musk's companies are also while undergoing regulatory scrutiny.

I mean, look at the SEC's investigation into Musk's purchase of Twitter, now called X. I mean, there are so many different ways in which Elon sort

of rubs up against the government and could benefit from an ear to the president.

It is also interesting because Elon Musk's politics have shifted to the right over the last couple of years. It is not entirely surprising to see

that he would align himself with trump. He has lots of opinions on border policy, on sort of freedom of speech issues as he would put it. So it is

not so surprising to see that he would do those, but certainly stands to benefit significantly in terms of his companies.

QUEST: Clare Duffy in New York. This one, we will watch and follow. Thank you.

Officials in Northern Gaza now say it is unsafe for people to return to Jabalya, despite reports of Israeli troop withdrawals. They say civilians

are still coming under fire, and some who have come back tell CNN, they found total destruction.

CNN's Nada Bashir reports.


NADA BASHIR, CNN REPORTER (voice over): Yet more scenes of utter horror as the wounded are carried to whatever safe place they can find. Faces, limbs,


These casualties were among the hundreds of civilians who returned to Jabalya on Thursday. News of an alleged withdrawal of Israeli troops

quickly overshadowed by the sound of artillery fire in the northern refugee camp.

Local officials warning that Israeli quadcopter drones had targeted civilians attempting to return to the city. The Israeli military on

Thursday saying its troops were continuing to "operate against terrorist infrastructure and operatives in Jabalya."

But in areas where Israeli forces have seemingly drawn down their presence, there is nothing left, but destruction.

Desecrated cemeteries, almost unrecognizable and UN-run schools, which have become vital shelters since the beginning of Israel's assault in Gaza, now

reduced to charred rubble.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE (through translator): We've returned in the hope of salvaging whatever we can, but unfortunately, everything has been

destroyed, everything has been burned.

Even my children were killed in this war. We have nothing left. No house, no displacement centers to take shelter in. This is all that I have managed

to salvage.

BASHIR (voice over): For so many making the journey back to Jabalya, there is nothing left to return to.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE (through translator): We don't know where else to go. Where will we live? Look, they are still dropping bombs on us, but they've

already destroyed everything.

We don't know where to go.

BASHIR: Earlier this month, Israeli forces doubled down on their assault on Jabalya, once home to thousands of Palestinian refugees. The vast majority

of whom well forcibly displaced to parts of Southern Gaza, which are now also coming under heavy bombardment by the Israeli military.

In Rafah, where more than a million civilians have been squeezed into densely populated encampments, Israel has continued to conduct devastating

airstrikes, killing dozens of civilians in just the last week.

And overnight, striking a Palestine Red Crescent ambulance, killing paramedics, Haitham Tubasi and Suhail Hassouna.


ASHRAF ABU LEBDA, PRCS PARAMEDIC (through translator): We were informed that there were martyrs and wounded people in Tal al-Sultan in Rafah. Two

of our ambulances headed to the site, and suddenly, one of them was directly targeted by a scouting plane.

BASHIR (voice over): But with much of Northern and Central Gaza now destroyed, Israel is only tightening its grip on the south.

Civilians left with no option, but to wait for the next deadly strike.

Nada Bashir, CNN, London.


QUEST: Breaking news to CNN: US President Joe Biden has now given Ukraine permission to strike within Russian territory using American weapons

according to two US officials.

It follows other western countries, including Germany and France, which have given the same permissions.

Vladimir Putin has warned that this issue could escalate the conflict.

Alex Marquardt is with me in Washington.

It is worth explaining how this happens. When you buy weapons. The sort of -- it is like the manual and the sort of the small print tells you what you

can do with them, where you can fire them, and where you can't fire them. Now, that is being changed. It seems very significant.

ALEX MARQUARDT, CNN SENIOR NATIONAL SECURITY CORRESPONDENT: It is significant. It is limited, but it is very significant, Richard, and I

think you're absolutely right. I am not sure that everyone was aware of the fact that despite the tens of billions of dollars of American weaponry that

has gone to Ukraine since the beginning of the war, Ukraine has actually been somewhat limited in the way that they can use that weaponry and that

they have only been allowed to fire those who munitions inside primarily of Ukraine and Russian-occupied Ukraine.

But now, we are in a situation where we are seeing these Russian forces make advances in Ukraine, particularly in the northeastern part of the

country around the city of Kharkiv.

And so what the US has now done, what President Joe Biden has now done is given key permission to use the weapons that the US has given to Ukraine to

fire into Russian territory at troops that are either carrying out attacks on Kharkiv, who are preparing to carry out attacks on Kharkiv.

So this is a significant shift after a fair bit of frustration from the Ukrainians who have felt that they have been quite hamstrung by these

limitations. Of course, we've seen countless attacks by Ukraine inside Russia, but that has been almost entirely with Ukrainian weaponry.

And now, what we are hearing from the Biden administration is that in a limited basis, when it comes to this offensive against Kharkiv, that the

Ukrainians will be able to use rockets and artillery against those Russian forces.

But we should note, Richard, not the most formidable missiles. The ATACMS, as they're known, that the US has given to Ukraine, so there are still


QUEST: But Alex, two words "slippery slope." Once you said well, you can go into Russia for those against Kharkiv, is it a much further argument to

say, well, the troops that are going to be going to attack Kharkiv, you can see where we go with this, can't you?

MARQUARDT: Yes, absolutely and I put that very question to a US official just a short time ago, who told me about this shift in policy and this

person told me that at this time, they are not anticipating a broadening of the policy, but as you say, Richard, this can be a slippery slope.

The US has been a holdout when it comes to loosening these restrictions. As you noted, the French, the Germans, the Secretary General of NATO has said

that it is time for the US and other NATO allies to allow those weapons to be used on a broader basis inside Russia, so that remains to be seen.

But this is quite significant and I think it is a recognition not only of that pressure, but of the relative success that we've seen from the Russian

forces lately -- Richard.

QUEST: We also saw this in another guise with the tanks, if you remember. You had all of these countries that wanted to give tanks to Ukraine, but

were not allowed to because the original manufacturing country either the United States, Germany, or the United Kingdom, or whoever else, had to give


So there is a definitely a chain of integrity, isn't there, for armaments once they are sold legitimately.

MARQUARDT: Well, I think you're talking about two things. There has been such a significant ramp-up of the type of weaponry that has been sent to


Remember the very beginning of the war?


MARQUARDT: We were just talking about the javelins and the stingers, which are shoulder-mounted munitions that are fired against armored vehicles

primarily and some aircraft. And now, we've gone all the way up to tanks and armored personnel carriers and anti-aircraft weapons and these huge


And in a lot of cases, Germany for example, the Leopard 2 tank was the big tank that the Ukrainians wanted from Germany, but Germany wouldn't give it

until the US had given their Abrams tank, which many experts believe is not particularly well-suited to this war.


So there has not only been a ramp-up of that type of weaponry, but also once the jar is loosened and some of those restrictions are thrown by the

wayside, then essentially, all bets are off and some of that more impressive weaponry comes in.

But Richard, it really does come down to the concerns about escalation and there have been few particularly on the US side that Russia would see this

as a provocation. They would see it as a significant escalation and then they would escalate on their side.

I will say that the US has been more fearful than some of its allies when it comes to that question of escalation and the Ukrainians had been very

frustrated by it.

So this is just a first step. Right now, we are being told that this is as far as its going to go, but of course, that could change in the future.

QUEST: Alex, grateful. Thank you for coming so quickly to tell us about it, and when there are more details, please come back.

It is QUEST MEANS BUSINESS tonight. The jury in the Donald Trump hush money trial has now been deliberating continuously since this morning. That is

after they reheard the jury instructions and parts of the testimony. The latest, in a moment.


QUEST: Hello, I am Richard Quest. We have a lot more QUEST MEANS BUSINESS together. It is not too late to score a bargain this summer travel season.

I will be talking to the CEO of Kayak about his summer cheat sheet.


And how much money is too much? According to Gene Simmons of Kiss, he is still launching new business ventures at 74 and you can never have enough


We will get to all of it after the headlines because this is CNN, and on this network, the news comes first. The bodies of two missionaries who are

killed by a gang last week in Port-au-Prince had been returned to the United States. They were brought on the first U.S. commercial flight to

Haiti in months. CNN has exclusively learned that the U.S. brokered talks between the Haitian government and gang leaders to secure the return of

Davy and Natalie Lloyd.

Early election returns from South Africa show the ruling ANC party still short of an absolute majority. The African National Congress has been in

power for 30 years since the end of Apartheid. Now it has 42 percent of the vote with the counting nearly 35 percent complete. The final results are

expected on Sunday.

Israel's Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is facing a new political challenge. Benny Gantz, the head of the National Unity Party, has proposed

a bill to dissolve parliament and hold new elections. Gantz is a member of the war cabinet and has grown increasingly critical of Netanyahu's


Officials in Iceland say a volcano that erupted on Wednesday has calmed down a bit. It's the volcano's fifth eruption since December and prompted

the evacuation of the Blue Lagoon tourist hotspot, as well as a nearby town. That town is still without electricity.

SCIUTTO: Back to the courtroom. And one of our top stories, the jury is now set to be excused for the day. This after nearly 12 hours of deliberations

in Donald Trump's criminal hush money trial. 12 hours over the last two days.

We're told the former president is -- and his team have been passing the time by watching news coverage of the trial. Trump apparently receiving

clips of his allies defending him on television, a favorite past-time of his. Jurors are reviewing those 34 felony counts against him.

James Sample is a law professor at New York's Hofstra University and he joins me now.

Good to have you on, sir. We don't know where the jury stands on this. They're deliberating in private as it was intended. What we know is what

they're asking for. And this morning they asked for a few things. Testimony to be read back from David Pecker and Michael Cohen describing a meeting

during the campaign in 2016 in which that team along with Donald Trump formed something of a plan to catch and kill stories that might be damaging

to the then candidate for president.

Does that indicate anything to you that a jury would have that specific testimony read back?

JAMES SAMPLE, PROFESSOR OF LAW, HOFSTRA UNIVERSITY: Well, it's good to be with you. It's hard to read the tea leaves in terms of what it means

specifically. But if one were to say on balance and play the odds so to speak, the particular testimony that the jurors requested this certainly

favorable for the prosecution in part because there was a particular focus, as you say, on David Pecker.

And the idea, and this was in very much in the prosecution's closing when Todd Blanche went through his summation on the defense side, you got this

sense that the case was all about Michael Cohen. But when the prosecution did its summation, Joshua Steinglass basically said Michael Cohen is

essentially the belt and suspenders. He's redundant of all of the other evidence. And so it seems as though the jurors are requesting, in a sense,

the opportunity to match up the testimony from the first witness who testified on direct examination, that being David Pecker, and the last

witness who testified for the prosecution on direct examination that being Michael Cohen.

And with regard to those meetings and with regard to Donald Trump calling David Pecker while David Pecker was in an investor meeting, calling him out

of the meeting, and saying, you know, in essence, the exact same thing that Michael Cohen says, it's been favorable, but, you know, you never know with

a jury of 12 individuals.

SCIUTTO: Well, the other thing they asked to be read back by the judge were portions of the 50 some odd pages of jury instructions including a segment

that relates to the part of the law that raises the charges to a felony from a misdemeanor.


And that is really the leap that they have to make here to vote to convict on some or all of these 34 felony counts. Is that significant for them to

say, hey, I want to look again at what is necessary here to make these felonies?

SAMPLE: Yes, I think what it indicates is that this jury has a very important job and they're taking this very important job very seriously.

You know, one of the crux, as your question indicates, the crux of this case all along has been false business records, which is a misdemeanor

standing alone. But the elevating of the false business records misdemeanor to a felony is a function of, in essence, a second crime.

And the New York state prosecutors have presented that second crime as a New York election law crime, i.e., that the underlying false business

records were in -- were pursued as a part of other unlawful means. It's very complicated, nuanced point of law. But what the prosecutors have

gotten and what the New York law allows is that those other unlawful means, the elevating of the underlying falsification of business records charges,

become a felony but in this second instance, the elevation, the jurors don't need to be unanimous as to what the specific unlawful means was.

They can choose from federal election law, New York state tax law, or other sort of causing yet more multiplication of other business records. So there

our options with respect to, in a sense, the elevating factor. But there needs to be unanimity as to that first fundamental predicate offense.

SCIUTTO: Final thing that the jury asked or one of the final things they asked was to be re-read this rain metaphor, which is striking here. And I'm

going to summarize, but the idea that if you look out the window and the ground is wet and people are carrying umbrellas and they're wearing rain

codes, you can infer that it rained even if you didn't see it.

Explain how that might be key to this case and how that relates to the charges against Trump.

SAMPLE: Yes, it's a really good question and it's a fairly common metaphor in jury instructions, and what it's intending to illustrate, what the

metaphor is intended to illustrate is that the jurors are supposed to rely only on the material that is in the record, only on the evidence that they

heard in the case, the exhibits and the testimony. They're not supposed to rely on outside factors, but they are allowed to bring the common sense

that makes them citizens in this country to bear, as they evaluate that evidence.

It's a sort of nuanced flavor thing which is in essence a way of saying, now you're not allowed to consider outside factors, but you are allowed to

use your sound judgment based on the kind of obvious implications that you would draw from your common sense as a citizen.

SCIUTTO: Right. Maybe if it was simpler, it'd be if it looks like a duck, it quacks like a duck, it's a duck.

SAMPLE: That's right.

SCIUTTO: James Sample, law professor, thanks so much for joining us.

SAMPLE: Thank you.

SCIUTTO: Well, if you are looking to save a little money on your summer vacation this year, the travel site Kayak says give Mexico a try. Tickets

are down as much as 27 percent from last year. Richard speaks to the CEO coming up.


JAKE TAPPER, CNN ANCHOR: -- we don't know, we don't have any idea and we're certainly not going to find out at least for another 30 minutes. But this

is a big breaking news.

Elie Honig is here.

So, as a general rule and I don't know if this is even fair, but you can tell me if it's not. OK? Is -- this is relatively quick for a complicated

34-count indictment. Judge Merchan says please let there be no reactions, no outbursts of any kind when they read the verdict.

Good luck to you on that, sir.

The -- is 11 hours, 43 minutes considered to me it's short. Trump, by the way, Trump leaning back in his chair when the judge took the bench.


He kept a straight face when the judge announced there was a verdict. Does this seem quick to you and does that usually mean not guilty, guilty, what

-- any ideas?

ELIE HONIG, CNN SENIOR LEGAL ANALYST: This does not feel unduly quick or unduly long to me. And I will say this, here's one piece of good news for

prosecutors. There are three potential outcomes here, right? Conviction or convictions of some sort, not guilty of some sort, but a hung jury is now

off the table, right? And that would be a fear for me as a prosecutor from the start because a certain small percentage of cases do hang.

I think there was a heightened chance of a hung jury here, just given the nature of the defendant here, the fact that people tend --

TAPPER: Hung juries take a lot longer than 12 hours.

HONIG: And they wouldn't have said we have a verdict.

TAPPER: Right.

HONIG: So this is not a hung jury. And what we're about to hear, it's really important to remember, there are 34 counts in this case. So the jury

is going to read its verdict. One of those counts at a time, count one, count two, count three, all the way through.

Now they might not necessarily find all guilty or all not guilty. They could find different verdicts with respect to different charges. But the

thing that would give me a big sigh of relief right now as a prosecutor, again, all the qualifications we have no idea what this verdict will be.

TAPPER: Right.

HONIG: It's not a hung jury.

TAPPER: It takes hung jury off the table and right now, just to give you some updates from inside the courtroom, Trump and Blanche are still

chatting while they wait for the day to end, and the judge is off the bench. Blanche has been smiling or laughing at what Trump is telling him.

Let's bring in CNN's Kaitlan Collins -- Kaitlan.

KAITLAN COLLINS, CNN ANCHOR: I mean, Jake, I mean, obviously, we don't know what to expect here. We're waiting to see what this verdict is, but I will

say the Trump defense team that has been waiting along with their client, Trump, inside of this room and Trump's allies and his entourage, they

thought they were about to go home for the day. They thought because, you know, they got back from that lunch break, that's about 1:00 to 2:00 p.m.

that's when there's no activity in the court, there was no note afterwards.

There had been radio silence from the jury and they had been expecting that they were about to be home for the day and deliberations were going to

resume tomorrow. And so of course no one knows what is happening inside that jury room except for the jury itself. But now that there is word of a

verdict, this comes as Trump himself has been sitting inside the courtroom for a few minutes.

He's been chatting with his lead attorney here, Todd Blanche. They were kind of talking back and forth. Kara Scannell in the room said that they

were sitting so close their shoulders were almost touching. But really they've just been hanging out inside of this room across the hall from the

courtroom where Trump is about to have this verdict read to him from this jury. They were eating pizza earlier.

They were for watching TV and just kind of waiting to see what this jury was going to decide, Jake. So, obviously, this is a remarkable moment. You

heard Elie there saying it's clearly not a hung jury since they do have a verdict here. The Trump team had been hoping that there would be a hung

jury in this case. It seemed unlikely since the likelihood of those is not very high when you look at the percentages of how many hung juries there

have been in the past.

But now they are waiting to find out what this is going to look like. Obviously, they've been planning on the political side for the outcome of

this verdict, whether it is going to be a guilty or not guilty verdict, and how that's going to influence Trump on what he just mentioned when he was

going inside the courtroom there, Jake. And he was saying, I want to campaign as Trump was walking in there.

And so quite a remarkable moment as they are waiting along with the rest of us to see what this verdict is going to be. And I should note, you know,

Trump has been attending this trial every single day, it's required for him to be here. It's also required for him to be at the courthouse for this

very reason that we are experiencing right now, which is that the verdict does have a jury.

I should note Eric Trump is sitting in the courtroom behind his father. He is the only member of the Trump family that we have seen in court with

Donald Trump today. North Dakota Governor Doug Burgum was also here earlier. It's not even clear if he's still here. Other members of Trump

Trump's defense team.

Stacy Schneider is also joining us.

And Stacy, I mean, obviously we're just getting this breaking news that the jury does in fact have a verdict. We've got about 30 minutes or so while we

are waiting for them to fill out this form. What does this process look like now that the jury has reached this verdict as they're filling out

these forms where I know obviously, as we heard in the jury instructions, they'll come into the room, the jury foreman, foreperson, juror number one

will be the one who kind of verbalizes this, but the judge will go through the list and ask each juror to confirm yes, this is your verdict, whether

it's guilty or not guilty?

STACY SCHNEIDER, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: Yes. What you just described is called polling the jury and that happens seconds. So first, they'll actually read

the verdict to each count. And then they'll go through each individual juror and ask them if it's true that that was the verdict that they had

rendered. The reason that is done is because it has to be unanimous verdict.

Each and every juror must agree and defense likes the individual jurors polled at the end of the case if it's a guilty verdict because they want to

make sure that each juror is firm on their decision.


No one felt pressured. Sometimes jurors, it's happened before where they've spoken out when they're polled and said, was this your verdict as well

individually, and if there's a little hesitancy that might be explored. That's an odd occurrence. It has happened, it's not often.

I want to share with everyone one sort of old wives' tale that defense attorneys use when juries are coming back into the room in Manhattan with a

verdict, we always look at the expression of the jurors' faces and whether or not they're looking at the defendant when they walk in the room. The

reason for that is when the jurors returned to the box and all gets seated, which they have to be before the verdict is read out and court reopens,

they usually pass right in the direction of the defense table.

And, you know, the old wives' tale is, or the theory is, it's not scientific, but if the jurors are looking at the defendant, we tend to

think that means a guilty -- a not guilty verdict, excuse me. If they don't look at the defendant, it means that they're nervous or anxious, they don't

want to look him directly in the eye because they're about to drop the hammer on the defendant.

The other thing we look at in jurors when they all come back as a group into the jury box when the verdict is ready to be read is, are they jovial?

Are they relaxed? Or are they somber? If they are relaxed, I've seen juries come back with a verdict on my cases. If they're kind of laughing and they

seem loosened up, I know it's a really good sign. If they come back in the room and they're somber and they're not really looking, some of them looked

down, it's not a good sign. It could mean a guilty verdict.

COLLINS: And I also have Paula Reid and Kristen Holmes here with me.

And obviously, Paula, I mean, this is remarkable that the jury had three notes, two yesterday, a third this morning, and then no more. I mean, we

were waiting to see, we thought maybe they have another question. They want to hear some more evidence and their only notes and their only questions

were to reread testimony, and to have the jury instructions, read back to them, and after that they have now reached a verdict.

PAULA REID, CNN CHIEF LEGAL AFFAIRS CORRESPONDENT: Yes, I think we're all very stunned that they have a verdict already. We thought for sure they

would want to hear maybe additional portions of witness testimony read back to them. Maybe those instructions, many of which were bogged down in some

legalese read back to them.

But I think we all need to take a second and pause. I mean, this is a significant moment in the history of the United States. We are about to

find out if a former president will become a convicted felon. This is the first case of its kind, and the fact that these deliberations move this

quickly is quite shocking as someone who sat here for seven weeks and watch every second of it.

COLLINS: Yes, I think we had -- I mean, you know, what's also notable is how the reaction is playing inside the courtroom. I mean, Trump and his

attorneys, they thought they were about to go home for the day. They thought they had more time --

KRISTEN HOLMES, CNN NATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: -- Donald Trump was going to go to the game cameras as soon as this wrapped and told there was no verdict,

and that they were going back in there. That the jury was going to be released at 4:30. And they were ready to come back again tomorrow. And

today we're at a certain point, you can tell by Donald Trump's mood, he was slapping, he was laughing around Todd Blanche, you know, writing him notes.

He was feeling like he was going home and was going to sit through this again tomorrow. Happy to be going home. This is very surprising to them.

COLLINS: I mean, we were sitting here and the judge brought the parties into the courtroom. He said, I'm going to go and release the jury around

4:30 p.m. This is about 4:20 or so. And then we were kind of sitting here, well, you know, it's been a while since the judge has come back into the

room. You know, what's taking so long? Because typically he'd bring the jury in, tell him not to discuss the case, and then say, OK, you can you

can go home. We'll see you tomorrow morning.

And instead he came back in the room. There was a note and he said that the jury told him they have reached a verdict and now Trump and his attorneys

are quite still. They went from chatting and Trump and Todd Blanche kind of laughing and smiling at one another to now quite serious as they're about

to find what this jury --

HOLMES: Alina Habba, one of Trump's attorneys, not on this case but previous cases, walked in with her mouth agape, that has been quiet. Eric

Trump walked out of the room, then came back in and is now sitting behind his father again, I mean, clearly they are scrambling right now because

this was not expected.

Now they have been expecting any moment all day for there to be a verdict. But at this point, they just come to the conclusion there wasn't going to

be one. It was time to move on. Now I do just want to say one thing, you mentioned this when you're talking to Jake, about the political

ramifications of all of this. Donald Trump's team has been preparing for a guilty verdict since before this trial. They believe that they have been

really on the messaging of saying this was election interference, saying that this was linked to President Joe Biden.

They are trying to make sure this doesn't impact him in November, but the real truth is that we just don't know. This is unchartered territory. We've

obviously seen the polls. They haven't moved in the past when Donald Trump faces legal issues, but that doesn't mean anything in terms of a conviction

or potential conviction.


COLLINS: And Paula, obviously, what you have been reporting was that the Trump team was anticipating an Allen charge, that the jury would say, we

can't come to a decision. The judge would bring them in and say, I do really urge you to come to a unanimous decision. That hasn't happened here.

Clearly whatever their decision is, they've reached to this verdict after not very long. I mean, quite several hours, but maybe not as long as we

expected if they were going to go into tomorrow.

REID: Exactly. So we don't know what the verdict is going to be acquittal conviction, maybe deadlocked on some, maybe unanimous decision on some

others. But yes, they were concerned that they would be deadlocked completely. The judge would send them back into the deliberation room with

this Allen charge, which encourages unanimity. Just find some sort of decision to avoid a mistrial.

And that would be what potentially prompted them to convict him on some counts, but it appears that the jury, when you think about 12 different

people across 34 different counts, even just this morning repeating the instructions, this historic task, they have reached some sort of consensus.

Now the Manhattan district attorney Alvin Bragg is now in the courtroom. He of course the man who brought this case to some controversy.

Some have argued that he bowed to political pressure. He's kept a very low profile, though, throughout these proceedings. We rarely see him in the

courtroom except for key moments. Unlike other prosecutors who have gone after Trump, he has said almost nothing about this case over the past year

or so. So I'm sure at least one of our reporters will be watching his reaction when this verdict comes down.

COLLINS: And Alvin Bragg being in that room is notable as well as Stacy Schneider is back with us.

And Stacy, you know, this is a huge moment for Donald Trump, for this country, for Todd Blanche, his lead attorney who has really altered so many

aspects of his life, quitting a high-powered legal firm here in New York, moving to Palm Beach, registering as Republican. This is also a really

significant moment for the district attorney here, Alvin Bragg, who took on this case, has faced some criticism --

TAPPER: -- in service of an alleged cover-up of money paid to former Trump fixer, Michael Cohen, in connection with the purported Stormy Daniels hush

money conspiracy. That's what's being alleged.

SCHNEIDER: But the way that the case was brought was a somewhat novel approach to charging Donald Trump with the felony version of falsifying

business records. This case really on the books on New York state law, really was more of a misdemeanor type offense. And by introducing this

whole component about alleged election interference and alleged illegal campaign contributions, that this was sort of a reach by Alvin Bragg a

little bit to apply the statute as a felony for Donald Trump.

And the reason why he wasn't charged with a misdemeanor in this case, which I think they could have made out very, very easily based on the evidence

that was presented at this trial, was because when Alvin Bragg came into office, the statute of limitations had already run on the misdemeanor.

There are longer statute of limitations on felonies.

And this case was under investigation by the prior district attorney of Manhattan, Cyrus Vance Jr., by his office for quite some time and they

brought in very specialized prosecutors to investigate Trump. And one of them quit because when Alvin Bragg came in initially he did not want to

pursue that particular investigation of Donald Trump.

And the prosecutor who was a federal prosecutor and was brought in on the state side in Manhattan to oversee the investigation, had said publicly

that he believed there were -- he had found evidence of multiple felonies committed by Donald Trump and he could not understand why the new district

attorney, Alvin Bragg, was not pursuing the investigation and submitting the case to a grand jury back at that time.

Now, I don't know what was going through Alvin Bragg's head. You know, I try a lot of cases against his office for many, many years, and the

proceeding district attorneys. But my theory is that when Michael Cohen was being investigated by federal prosecutors in the Southern District of New

York in 2018 and this evidence was starting to accumulate from the federal investigation, I surmise that Alvin Bragg wanted to rely on what was

already accomplished and gathered by the feds.

They had Michael Cohen's guilty plea back in 2018. He served -- Michael Cohen served his prison time in 2019, and a lot of this case was based on

the fact that Michael Cohen pled guilty, among other charges to an illegal campaign contribution that stemmed from the situation with paying off

Stormy Daniels. So it was a novel approach to prosecuting Donald Trump but obviously if there's a guilty verdict here, it paid off quite well.


And I have to say the district attorney I think did a remarkable job. They're usually my opponent. They did a remarkable job presenting their

case and applying the nuances of the law with the witnesses that they had. I mean, this was probably the most interesting collection of witnesses on

the planet. In any case certainly in Manhattan that we've ever seen. And problematic witnesses and we even heard in --

TAPPER: Different forms?



FRIEDMAN AGNIFILO: It's actually 68 different boxes, right? 34 guilty. 34 not guilty. It's a list.

TAPPER: OK. So several pieces of paper?

FRIEDMAN AGNIFILO: It's probably. I don't think it would fit on one piece of paper.

TAPPER: Right.

FRIEDMAN AGNIFILO: So I would guess a couple of -- but it's not like they're filling out forms with names and addresses, and Social Security


TAPPER: Right. So this is my little -- this is my little form. I don't know if we can zoom in on this. This is just to help me explain what they're

about to decide. Is it something like this?

FRIEDMAN AGNIFILO: Something like that. And they --

TAPPER: So count one and then just two checks.

FRIEDMAN AGNIFILO: Correct, two checks.


FRIEDMAN AGNIFILO: Guilty or not guilty. And so a question would be if it was a clean sweep guilty or clean sweep not guilty, they could -- I don't

think we'd 30 minutes to have to fill that out. So when they said they needed 30 minutes because it's literally just checking the boxes. It seems

like, and again we'll know very soon, that they want to make sure if they've found him guilty on some and not guilty on others, that it's

corresponding to the right count, which is why they need 30 minutes.

TAPPER: So I see. So if they were acquitting him altogether or convicting him altogether --

FRIEDMAN AGNIFILO: They could just go like this.

TAPPER: They would -- right. Two minutes. Can we get two minutes to fill out this form?


TAPPER: But they want 30 minutes, that might -- and again, we're just reading tea leaves here.


TAPPER: But in your experience as somebody who used to work for the Manhattan District Attorney, in your experience, that probably means they

want to be careful about how they fill out this form.

FRIEDMAN AGNIFILO: And when they're ready what will happen is they will be -- they will all be brought back into the courtroom. The jury will sit in

their designated seats. The foreperson of the jury will be asked to stand. They will stand up. They will hand their verdict sheet to the court officer

who will then walk it over to the judge. The judge will look at it and hand it back to the court officer who will hand it to the jury foreperson, and

the judge will say, members of the jury, I understand that you have reached a verdict. Is that correct? And they would say yes, it is.

OK. And as to either the clerk or the judge will say as to count one of the indictment, how do you find, and they will say guilty or not guilty. As to

count two, how do you find, and they will go down the line.

TAPPER: Who's going to say that, the judge or the clerk?

FRIEDMAN AGNIFILO: It can be either the judge or the clerk. Just depends on a personal preference.

TAPPER: And just -- sorry to interrupt, and just to bring you, the viewer or listener, the information, as they do that, as the judge or the clerk

says, on count one, how do you find and the foreperson and the jury says guilty or not guilty, we will provide that to you in real time. So you will

know count one seconds after it's been said. You will know count two seconds after it's been said. We will bring that to you live here on CNN.

The judge's clerk has entered the courtroom as they await the jury. The defendant, former President Trump, and his attorneys, and the prosecutors

are occasionally chatting among themselves. I cannot imagine the nerves in that room the -- first of all, for the defendant and most especially for

the defendant, a former U.S. president. This has never happened before. But also for everybody else in that room, the jurors, the lawyers, the

prosecutors, the most important case of their lives and something of enormous consequence politically, historically, legally.

LAURA COATES, CNN ANCHOR AND CHIEF LEGAL ANALYST: And of course remember with the process of selecting the jurors, they were all probably

justifiably concerned about their safety, about how they'd be viewed if their identity was revealed in some way, anonymity has been a very big

priority for this judge from the inception of this case, even having a juror have to leave and not be a part of the case longer because she was --

he was concerned about their anonymity being compromised.

And now they're ready to deliver a verdict as a matter of consequence, and how it'll be received by the public given that we are 100 and, what, 59

days away from a presidential election with the defendant as the person who will be on that ballot. It's an enormous moment. It is for all defendants

as well. Remember the weight of the government against a person, the burden of proof that is required to convict somebody. These are all things that

are considered by a defendant.

He came out yesterday and talked about an almost start to manage expectations about even Mother Teresa could not have beat this case. Now

the burden of proof does not mean that it's a given that you will get a conviction or that the weight of the government in having your name at the

other end, against just the people of the state of New York. But just think about this. This is the indictment in this case. This is how lengthy it

was. 34 charges. They had to go through each of them, some involved ledgers, entries, some involved invoices, others involve personal checks.

If this is a mixed verdict, as Karen has articulated, well, it's perhaps not surprising that there are different ways in which the evidence came in

to support each one defendants.