Return to Transcripts main page

Smerconish

Jury Selection Drama In Trump Hush Money Case; Supreme Court Will Decide If Homeless Can Sleep In Public Areas; House To Vote On Ukraine, Israel Foreign Aid Bill; Fears Of Escalation Between Israel And Iran After Latest Attack. Aired 9-10a ET

Aired April 20, 2024 - 09:00   ET

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

[09:00:00]

VICTOR BLACKWELL, CNN ANCHOR: Will Maxen "And the Land Stand Still" show is at the UTA artists face pop up in New York on West 27th Street. It's up through Thursday.

Thank you for joining me today. I'll see you back here next Saturday at 08:00 a.m. Eastern. Smerconish is up next.

MICHAEL SMERCONISH, CNN ANCHOR: Will Trump testify? I'm Michael Smerconish in Philadelphia.

Opening statements come Monday morning in the first ever criminal prosecution of an American president. Donald Trump has said multiple times that he will take the stand. A week ago Friday at Mar-a-Lago he was asked by reporters whether he would testify.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Is it risky for you to testify?

DONALD TRUMP (R), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: I don't know. I'm testifying, I tell the truth. I mean, all I can do is tell the truth. And the truth is that there is no case, they have no case.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SMERCONISH: He repeated that plan yesterday outside the New York City courthouse where he's being tried. Of course, just because he says he will testify doesn't make it so. He's not required to testify.

In his civil fraud trial last year, he said the same thing before he was scheduled to take the stand for a second time only to cancel the day before. Yesterday at his so-called Sandoval hearing, Trump was put on notice of the prosecution's desire to cross examine him if he does testify on several specific matters, including the verdict in his civil fraud case where he was found to have inflated his assets. The E. Jean Carroll cases which resulted in verdicts for sexual assault and defamation, and a suit he filed against Hillary Clinton which was thrown out. Judge Juan Merchan will rule on the admissibility of that subject matter. On Monday, the judge's ruling might cause Trump to reconsider his stated desire to testify. But depending on how the evidence comes in, Trump might have no choice but to testify. And here's why. Trump faces 34 counts of falsifying business records in connection with a hush money payment to a former adult film actress, Stormy Daniels. Jurors will have to determine whether the payment was a violation of state and federal election law, meaning that Trump paid the money for the purpose of silencing Daniels with an eye toward his reelection or as Trump would like to argue that it was made to spare his family from embarrassing disclosures regardless of the election.

The Wall Street Journal recently summarize the facts as follows, "Ms. Daniels has said that in 2006, she and Mr. Trump had one intimate encounter a decade later as the 2016 election neared Mr. Trump's fixer Michael Cohen paid Ms. Daniels $130,000 to keep quiet. A nondisclosure agreement isn't illegal. Mr. Bragg's complaint is about the paperwork. Mr. Cohen was reimbursed through 2017 via a monthly retainer "disguised as a payment for legal services," the DA said. He padded his indictment by separately charging each invoice check and ledger entry to get 34 counts."

Falsifying business records in New York can be a misdemeanor. But that statute of limitations had expired. So DA Alvin Bragg charged Trump with felonies which require a showing of intent to commit another crime. Bragg was only able to do that because COVID had caused an extension of the applicable statute of limitations for a year during which time Trump was charged. Remember, assessing the (inaudible) that all of this required is presumably why the Feds passed on pressing this case themselves. So what's the second crime?

Election interference, the claim that the payment was an undisclosed campaign contribution in excess of federal limits. Trump's defense, probably that the payment wasn't campaign related, but rather was solely intended to protect his family and reputation notwithstanding the election. Prosecutors will note the timing so close to the election, Trump's response, that's when Stormy Daniels sought payment.

Here's the challenge for the Trump defense, how to get their version into evidence? There's one witness who is uniquely qualified to explain the motivation behind the payment, Donald Trump, but his taking the stand carries enormous risk. When he testified in the case where he was found to have inflated his net worth, "The New York Times made this observation, "In Justice Engoron's courtroom, Mr. Trump delivered a rally made rants from the witness stand, marking the climax of a month long proceeding that was alternately stultifying and scintillating the former president attack one of Ms. James's lawyer saying, "You and about every other Democrat, district attorney, A.G. and U.S. attorney were coming after me from 15 different sides, all Democrats, all Trump haters."

If Trump doesn't take the stand, he has limited means of getting his side into evidence. One alternative is through another witness. Michael Cohen is a possibility. But the question would need to be very simply and yet skillfully asked, something like, Mr. Cohen, you can understand how Mr. Trump may not have wanted his family to know the reason for this payment, right? If Cohen agrees that provides a sufficient basis for Trump's lawyer to argue that's why the true purpose of the payment was hidden, and that would spare Trump from testifying and facing a withering cross examination.

[09:05:25]

I wonder if Michael Cohen is prepared to answer that question and how so plus stormy Daniels. If Trump's lawyers can get Cohen or another witness to acknowledge that Trump sought to spare his family, it would set the stage for a closing argument asserting Trump's key defense without him having to testify. But if nobody else says it, Trump may have no choice but to testify. No matter what Trump said in advance of the trial, whether he testifies will probably be a game time decision.

I want to know what you think. Go to my website at smerconish.com, answer today's poll question, will Trump testify?

Joining me now to discuss CNN Senior Legal Analyst and former federal prosecutor Elie Honig and Alan Tuerkheimer, an attorney who for the last 24 years has been a jury litigation consultant. He's worked several high profile cases, including that of Martha Stewart.

OK, Elie, establishing intent is not easy for the prosecution either. How are they going to do it?

ELIE HONIG, CNN SENIOR LEGAL ANALYST: Well, Michael, they're going to do it through their witnesses. They're going to do it through Michael Cohen, they're going to do it through perhaps Stormy Daniels. They're going to argue Donald Trump's intent here was to interfere, of course with the campaign, to hide the information the allegation about stormy Daniels affair from the public. But I think Donald Trump's defense, I don't -- I do not actually agree that he needs to take the stand in order to make that defense. I think he can do it, as you said, through the prosecution witnesses.

And the closest example we have to this is the John Edwards trial back in 2012. He made a similar defense ultimately successfully, where he said his team argued the reason for the payments was to protect against personal humiliation. John Edwards never took the stand. They managed to do that through the prosecution's old witnesses.

By the way, the witnesses, Michael Cohen doesn't have to say Donald Trump wanted to protect his family, he won't say that. But as long as they establish that Donald Trump had a wife and children, and any normal human being would be embarrassed by the this disclosure, that's enough for the defendant to make that argument.

SMERCONISH: They've got to they've got to make sure that they are dotting all those eyes or putting all those pieces together so that in the final closing argument, his lawyer can stand up and draw on that. I'm saying that in the absence of any of that kind of testimony, I think it puts pressure on Donald Trump. Quick response from you on that, Elie.

HONIG: You're right, though, defense lawyers are allowed to argue inferences, so were prosecutors. And I think that's a much safer way for them to do that. You go, folks, you know this man has a family, any normal common sense human being would be embarrassed about these allegations. That's what happened here. That's enough for you to argue.

SMERCONISH: Alan Tuerkheimer, if you had participating in selecting this jury for the defense for Donald Trump, how would you be feeling right now?

ALAN TUERKHEIMER, JURY CONSULTANT/PRESIDENT OF TRIAL METHODS: Be feeling good. The anti-Trump sentiment is so prevalent in the county, and during the process, it came to the surface. So all the jurors, who expressed that they didn't like Donald Trump, they didn't like what he stood for, they said bad things about him, he repels them, they're eliminated, many of them self-eliminated. And then when it got down to the process, they answered more questions and they were given more targeted questioning. So finally, even at the point where the lawyers got to use their strikes, they got to get rid of another 10 other jurors.

So at this point, it's looking like a good open minded neutral jury, you have some business types, you have couple people in finance or somebody in sales that might connect in some way with Donald Trump. There's two lawyers on the jury. So at this point, I think he's got to be feeling pretty good about the jury giving him and maintaining his presumption of innocence.

SMERCONISH: Elie, you are a former federal prosecutor, how would you be feeling if you were the prosecution in this case?

HONIG: I would be satisfied but not overjoyed, Michael, for exactly the reasons that Alan just said. There are reasons for Donald Trump to be quite satisfied with this jury. I mean, I thought going into this week that we were going to end up with six, eight, 10 jurors who basically fell into this mold. I really disliked Donald Trump, I would never vote for him. I'm a typical liberal Manhattan, Democratic voter, but I will tell the judge that I can be fair and impartial and can I really, who knows?

Instead, it looks like there's maybe one juror, juror number 11, who sort of fits that mold. And as Alan said, there are several jurors who might worry me from the prosecution's point of view, keeping in mind that this case, the evidence is middling at best. You've got two lawyers who are going to sort of systematically dissect this case. You've got some finance folks, you've got people who read the Wall Street Journal, you got a guy who read art of the deal, so I think I'd be mildly concerned if I was the prosecution here. But I agree with Alan, it looks like a solid jury that should be able to rule on this case fairly.

[09:10:04]

SMERCONISH: I'm really surprised that juror number 11 wasn't struck for cause after saying that Trump seems very selfish and self-serving. Let me put on the screen, Alan, something else that was quoted about juror number 11. "I don't have strong opinions about him, but I don't like his persona, how he presents himself in public. I don't really agree with some of his politics, but that does not mean I can't be impartial. I don't like some of my co-workers, but I am not going to -- but I can hear him out and understand his point of view and understand his issues." Alan Tuerkheimer, your thought?

TUERKHEIMER: Judge heard the jurors say that that doesn't mean I can't be impartial, and I think that's all he needed to not dismiss this chair for cause. And Trump's team just hope that the other jurors rein this juror in if they go down a path, that's bad for Trump. And there's some strong personalities on the jury, it would appear, and so they just have to hope that this jury can be open, as they said, and look at the evidence as it comes in and make a fair determination when it comes time to deliver it.

SMERCONISH: Alan, is a person in your role as a jury consultant finished now in a case like this until you get to question the jurors when it's over? Or do you play an ongoing role advising counsel as to how to pitch their case?

TUERKHEIMER: We would advise counsel, we certainly help them craft for opening. Now that the lawyers -- we know the audience, we know the jury, now you can tailor openings to make arguments or resonate. And you keep that in mind as you go through the witness testimony and the evidence. You use certain language, you have certain perspectives now because really, you're just trying to win the case with these 12 jurors now, those are the only ones that matter. And so, jury consultants understand the art of persuasion and how you can help empower jurors into deliberation, argue your point of view to win the case.

SMERCONISH: Elie, I assume that that's the stuff of defense counsel, and that on the public's dime, you didn't have the ability to hire Alan or someone in Alan's role. But if your opponent had would you try and out the fact that they needed a jury consultant?

HONIG: Well, you're right, Michael, prosecutors don't pay for jury consultants, although they did in the Martha Stewart case, actually, and prosecutors have said publicly, they felt that it was useful. There's no way you would be able to get in the fact that the other side had hired a jury consultant that would be completely inadmissible. But I think it's really interesting what Alan said that he's -- that a jury consultant would ordinarily stay on the case. Because when you're a prosecutor, you are trained, you are desperate to look in that jury box, you want to see how are they reacting, you're casting looks over there. But you can't do that, because you're going to freak them out, you have to act cool.

But it would be -- it would have been great to have someone like Alan sitting back in the gallery watching them, oh, juror number six really reacted strongly, negatively when this happened, that would have been invaluable to me. But we didn't have the cash. We were just the federal government.

SMERCONISH: Alan, give me 30 seconds, your takeaway from the constitution of this jury as well as the alternates. What do you most want us to know?

TUERKHEIMER: Well, I just think that since they went through the process, I think they're neutral right now. I think that's -- it's interesting that most juries that sit for a duration of five or six weeks usually there's some retirees, I didn't see -- I don't think there are any retirees in the first 12, so it's interesting. They're Manhattanites. They represent Manhattan, it's a cross section of New York County. So, this is to be expected.

But as we've talked about, at this stage, given everything that the whole process that the sides went through, I think this is going to be a fair, a neutral jury, and they're going to render an historic verdict one way or the other.

SMERCONISH: Alan Tuerkheimer, thank you. Elie, as always. Excellent. Thank you, man.

HONIG: Thanks, Michael.

TUERKHEIMER: Thank you.

SMERCONISH: What are your thoughts? Hit me up on social media. I'll read some responses throughout the course of the program. From the world of X. Michael, as an attorney, would you put your client on the stand?

This client is uncontrollable. OK. I mean, you know, that he thinks he's his own. And there's an adage about this, about the fool who has himself who's a lawyer for a client. I didn't say that correctly but I think you know what I mean.

But he is a very difficult client. I would at all costs, not want him taking the stand in a case like this. And if he insisted on it, I probably want to create a record so that I was protected and he couldn't later say that my counsel was ineffective because I allowed him to take the stand. My gut tells me that he won't when all is said and done, but I've just explained to you why I think there's some elements of this case that they need to bring out or he might be forced to.

I want to know what you think. Go to my website at smerconish.com. Answer today's poll question. Very simple and yet, like it's the question of the day, will he testify?

Up ahead, the House is in session on a rare Saturday seeking to pass a bill on aid to Ukraine, Israel and the Indo Pacific region, which could up end speaker Mike Johnson's term. How could the long delayed funding impact the conflicts in those as regions? Admiral James Stavridis, the former Supreme Allied Commander of NATO, is here to analyze.

[09:15:06]

And a monumental case on how to handle the reaches the Supreme Court on Monday. Do the homeless have a right to camp in public places? I'm going to speak with an attorney who will be making the first oral argument in front of SCOTUS on behalf of the Oregon town bringing that case.

Please make sure you're signing up for the free and daily newsletter @smerconish.com for which Jack Ohman, the Pulitzer Prize winner sketching this cartoon.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[09:20:01]

SMERCONISH: When it comes to our homeless population, which is more cruel and unusual, doing nothing or giving criminal fines to those who camp in our public spaces? The United States Supreme Court will hear arguments on Monday to determine if cities across the nation can enforce laws that curb homeless encampments from forming in public spaces, from parks to sidewalks and school grounds. This landmark decision will be the most critical ruling addressing the homeless crisis in America in more than 40 years.

At the center of this national debate is Grants Pass Oregon, where the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a ruling that blocked the city from enforcing a ban on public camps for the homeless. The court's ruling from a previous case found that punishing the homeless was considered cruel and unusual punishment and unconstitutional unless the municipality enforcing that rule could provide a bed for its entire homeless population. Advocates for the homeless argue there aren't public shelters to accommodate everyone living many homeless people know where to go. Proponents for the stricter policies against homeless encampments argue that these living conditions are dangerous because 1000s of people are dying in the streets while issues like mental health, drug addiction, and housing costs remain unsolved.

Joining me now is the attorney who will be making the first oral arguments of this high profile case on behalf of the City of Grants Pass Oregon, Theane Evangelis. She's a partner in the firm of Gibson Dunn.

Council, welcome back. There's an awful lot riding on this case, right? I mean, the eyes of all cities and municipalities are looking at the Supreme Court to try and bring some parameters to this discussion.

THEANE EVANGELIS, REPRESENTING GRANTS PASS, O.R.: That's right, the stakes could not be higher. This case is about making sure that cities have the tools they need to address an escalating crisis on our streets and public spaces. This is an issue of public health and safety. And the court decisions all across the western United States have made things so much worse. They've created a tragedy on our streets and in our parks.

SMERCONISH: What's wrong with saying provide a bed or at least make sure that there's a bed available Grants Pass, Boise, LA, San Fran, fill in the bank -- blank. And if you can't provide a bed, then no, you can't take these measures.

EVANGELIS: The court decisions in the Ninth Circuit have held effectively that people have a right to camp and to refuse shelter for all sorts of reasons. Right now, in Grants Pass, we have empty shelter beds. And yet this week, this -- the situation is just deteriorating constantly. Just this week, a body was found in a tent, next to a little league field. So, we have empty shelter beds, and yet people are dying on the streets because cities can't rely on these basic laws that help them intervene to get people help.

They need to intervene to get people shelter, housing and services that they desperately need.

SMERCONISH: This is a really hard case, at least for me. And obviously, you're the one who will be making the argument on Monday, so you've studied it. But it's a very hard case for me to imagine where the members of the court will end up because there are such competing privacy, safety, individual liberty interests here. Do you think this is going to result in a six three split?

EVANGELIS: This case is about the Eighth Amendment, cruel and unusual punishments clause, that's what the Ninth Circuit relied on. And that's what the other side is arguing here prohibit cities from enforcing these very basic camping laws. And that provision has never been held to apply to anything like this. It's all about what sorts of punishments government can impose. And we think that it's cruel to leave people on the streets in these conditions.

We think that we need to intervene, and we need to have the ability to keep public spaces safe and clean for everyone. And it's true, homelessness is a complex policy issue. These are policy decisions that need to be made on a local level, balancing all of the competing needs of our communities. The wrong answer would be to constitutionalize this right to camp. We've seen what that has meant all throughout the Ninth Circuit.

San Francisco was under a federal injunction, other cities as well. So this is a widespread problem.

SMERCONISH: OK, I can tell you're at the top of your game, I made it as a compliment. You're like on autopilot. I'm probably the warm up for those nine on Monday. But what's the answer to my question, is there a progressive versus conservative look at this issue? I mean, is it going to break six, three, what do you think happens?

EVANGELIS: This is not a hard question under the Constitution. It's really a straightforward answer. And as far as the policy goes, we've had briefs filed in the Supreme Court from all sides of the political spectrum from Governor Newsom in California to states like Idaho, all over the country, cities and government leaders are weighing in explaining that having court decisions tie city's hands is actually harming the very people that the Ninth Circuit probably intended to help here. So this is not the answer.

[09:25:22]

SMERCONISH: Right. Well, how about this, the status quo is not working. Whatever we're doing is failing from coast to coast. Good luck on Monday. Thank you for being here.

EVANGELIS: Thank you.

SMERCONISH: Let's see what you're saying via social media. From the world of X, what do we have? If there are homeless people in your town, village or city, that's on you. Wait a minute, hold on. If there are homeless people in your town, village or city, that's on you. Don't blame anyone else.

So in other words, wherever you live, like, hey, we've taken control of this, and we don't have this issue, but shame on you San Fran or LA because it's your fault. No, it's a societal issue. And I refer to this subject as being a problem with homeless or homelessness. I don't think it's driven by you know, two by fours. It's driven by mental illness, and it's driven by addiction, and many instances, but we got to do something.

And this Ninth Circuit has essentially put the entire western United States in a straitjacket. Frankly, I know it sounds fantastical to say, provide a bed for every homeless individual, but I can't help but wonder if maybe that would be cheaper in the long run. Provide the shelter, and if there's a place for them to go, then you've got, as a municipality, more of a right to say, you've got to take the bed to which we've assigned and get treated. We'll see what happens on Monday.

I want to remind you, go to smerconish.com, my website, answer today's very simplistic and yet so intriguing poll question, will Trump testify?

Up ahead, can't wait to address this, first USC canceled a Muslim valedictorians graduation speech citing security concerns. After criticism, they've now also canceled appearances by all other outside commencement speakers, including tennis icon Billie Jean King, and Crazy Rich Asians director Jon Chu. What does this say about free speech or the lack thereof on campus?

Plus, Congress in session debating 95 billion in aid including to Ukraine and Israel before a vote later today. The four bill combo also includes a ban on TikTok but no concessions about the border there in jeopardizing Mike Johnson's speakership.

Plus, Friday's attack in Iran had the whole Mideast region on edge. What will come of Israel and Iran escalating ping pong match of missiles and drone attacks? I'm about to ask the former Supreme Allied Commander of NATO Admiral James Stavridis is here.

Remember, if you subscribe to my free and worthy daily newsletter @smerconish.com, you're going to get exclusive editorial cartoons from the legends. Rob Rogers drew this for us this week.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[09:32:46]

SMERCONISH: You're seeing live pictures as the House of Representatives is at work this Saturday morning to debate a foreign aid bill for Ukraine and Israel. Bipartisan cooperation is getting as rare as a solar eclipse these days but just such a coalition came together on Friday to advance the four-part $95 billion foreign aid bill to overcome opposition from the GOP's right flank.

More Democrats, 165, voted for the rule than did Republicans only 151. This legislation includes 60 billion for Ukraine, 17 billion for Israel, 9 billion in aid for Gaza and elsewhere, 8 billion for the Indo-Pacific region. And a fourth bill includes several GOP priorities like banning TikTok. Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene, unhappy that the bill did not include any concessions on the border, is leading a move to oust Mike Johnson from his House speaker role.

This week's reported attack by Israel near an Iranian airbase in the Isfahan province raises a troubling prospect for the region. Will these ongoing exchanges of attacks continue to escalate and further destabilized the Middle East?

The ball is currently in Iran's court following Israel's strikes near the city of Isfahan early Friday, despite President Biden and other world leaders calling on Israel to exercise restraint. Of course, this all began with Hamas' terror attack on October 7, followed by Israel's October 27 counterattack on the Gaza Strip.

As between Israel and Iran, the recent back-and-forth began April 1st with the suspected Israeli strike on an Iranian consular building in Damascus. In response to that, Iran launched airstrikes against Israel last weekend, approximately 170 drones, 120 ballistic missiles, and 30 cruise missiles, most of which were intercepted. Which brings us to this most recent attack so how does it all end?

Joining me now is Admiral James Stavridis. He spent more than 30 years in the Navy rising to become the supreme allied commander of NATO. He's also the co-author with Elliot Ackerman of a recent and terrific novel called "2054." Admiral, this looks like sophisticated theater. In other words, it has got to take an awful lot of planning to fire so many weapons back-and-forth without hitting anybody.

[09:35:03]

So, either that was deliberate or both sides are incompetent. Explain.

ADM. JAMES STAVRIDIS (RET.), FORMER NATO SUPREME ALLIED COMMANDER: I think both sides are signaling. And so, a way to think of it is Iran sent a mob, 350 drones, cruise missiles, ballistics. Sent a mob to try and get into the house.

I don't think Iran wanted to miss everything, but I think they thought they'd get -- 10 percent of those missiles would get through. Nothing got through. Basically, all got stopped outside the house outside the air defense lines of Israel. Then Israel response, Michael, and here's the really interesting signal.

Instead of going big and launching a shock and awe attack against targets all across Iran, Israel, in effect, became a burglar, sent three missiles into Isfahan in the dead center of Iran, near their nuclear facilities. It'd be like a burglar breaking into your house, going to your safe, and then putting a yellow sticky on it saying, I'll be back anytime I want to.

These are kind of two different signals. I think both landed and that's why you're seeing both sides now trying to ratchet this thing down.

SMERCONISH: Does it make it more difficult for the next time to know whether the other side really means it?

STAVRIDIS: It does. And therein lies the danger. You've probably read Barbara Tuchman's magisterial book about how Europe stumbled into the first world war, "The Guns of August." This is kind of the missiles of April. And as in "The Guns of August" in 1914, there was a lot of signaling, mobilization of military, lots of back-and-forth. They still miscalculated. They still entered an epic war, World War I.

Hopefully, the two sides here will avoid the missiles of April becoming like "The Guns of August" where we end up in a big war. I think we can avoid that.

SMERCONISH: I get that Israel put a Post-it note on the safe in Iran to let them know they were there. This after President Biden apparently told Prime Minister Netanyahu to take the win. Is that more signaling? Was Biden saying what he needed to say for his constituency and Netanyahu doing what he needed to do to appease the Israelis?

STAVRIDIS: I think on the part of President Biden, he sincerely and correctly, wants this situation to come down from the fever pitch of three to five days ago. On the side of Netanyahu, he has conflicting advice even within his war cabinet. I'm sure there were voices in Israel calling for Israel to go big. I think Netanyahu took the advice from President Biden but still sent a pretty direct signal to satisfy his constituencies within that war cabinet, Michael.

SMERCONISH: The use of all this high-tech weaponry is like straight out of your novel, "2054," which speaks of the singularity. What is that? And what is it that you're forecasting in the book?

STAVRIDIS: "2054" is about geopolitics and artificial intelligence at its heart. The singularity is a term that was coined by futurist 20 years ago, Ray Kurzweil. Singular means bringing together the biological who you are, Michael. Your brain, your memories, your proclivities, your preferences, your humanity with the mechanical, with the internet, and connecting the two.

And it sounds far-fetched but walk down the street in Manhattan nine tenths of the people have their nose one inch from the internet. It's called an iPhone. Elon Musk has already created something like a Neuralink that goes into the brain and brings the internet essentially directly into the brain.

So, I think it's very real to think about the singularity by 2054 being both of immense benefit but also danger and potential malevolence. We explore both of those themes in the novel "2054."

SMERCONISH: The novel is great and its one of those reads where you scratch your head and you say, is that true? Is that what's coming? Admiral, congratulations and thank you for being here.

STAVRIDIS: My pleasure, Michael.

SMERCONISH: Social media reaction from the world of X. What do we have?

Do you think this is escalating because they do not fear the Biden administration?

No, I don't -- I don't buy into the -- I mean, I hear the argument and you know where I hear the argument. Like, oh, he's feckless and he's weak. And this is what they're doing as a result.

I don't believe that. I think that the situation, relative to Israel and Iran, has a mind of its own, and that these things would be playing themselves out regardless.

[09:40:04]

If I didn't think otherwise I would -- I would tell you. Listen, I went to bed -- was it Thursday night? I went to bed Thursday night, having watched CNN 10:00 p.m. eastern time, just as Abby Phillip was on and talking about this presumed strike that had taken place. I was so concerned about it.

I got up at 4:00 the next morning. I wasn't sure what kind of a world I was waking up to. So, I'm thrilled that there are signaling one another, and I hope it doesn't escalate any further.

Still to come, first USC canceled its Muslim valedictorian's commencement speech citing safety concerns due to controversy over some pro-Palestinian social media posts. When there was outcry, the university canceled all outside commencements speeches this year. What kind of lesson is this teaching their students?

And please remember to vote on today's poll question at Smerconish.com. Real simple but really important. Will Trump testify? When you're there sign up for the free and daily newsletter. You'll get exclusive content from some prize-winning cartoonists like this baby from Steve Breen.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[09:45:42]

SMERCONISH: A hallmark of this program is my reading aloud your social media reaction. And I don't see them in advance.

It's kind of interesting. TC, my radio producer, she flags them and then she sends them to Catherine in the New York control room with our team there. They build what we call a full-screen. They get sent down electronically to Atlanta where David and the team then put them up on the screen. That's how the sausage gets made.

And the compliments, they never seem to get through our filter. Instead, it's your critique, your criticisms that we air. And I don't mind as long as they're civil because I think dissent has value and that's a lesson being lost on many college campuses.

USC has left this year's graduating class speechless. And I've got something to say about that. Friday, the university compounded its initial error, in my view, of canceling one commencement speaker by now canceling all of them. And in doing so, they harmed a rich tradition of colleges hosting speakers with a variety of the views. The controversy began when after awarding a graduation day speech to the valedictorian, Asna Tabassum, the university then canceled that speech citing unspecified security concerns. Tabassum, who studied biomedical engineering with an interest in global health care equity, had posted a link on Instagram to a pro-Palestinian Web site criticizing Israel.

The link contained content that some pro-Israel groups considered to be anti-Semitic. Those groups then launched a campaign against her.

In canceling her appearance, USC wrote in a release, "The intensity of feelings fueled by both social media and the ongoing conflict in the Middle East, has grown to include many voices outside of USC and has escalated to the point of creating substantial risks relating to security and disruption at commencement.

Tabassum said this to CNN's Abby Phillip.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

ASNA TABASSUM, VALEDICTORIAN WHO'S SPEECH HAS BEEN CANCELED BY USC: I think there's a nuance here. I think, you know, I expressed an opinion through a length that I had on my Instagram. The hate and the vitriol that was unleashed towards me after, I think, was part of the reason that the university caved in.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SMERCONISH: After such national blowback and the cancellation, did the university admit the error of its ways or make moves to beef up security?

No. Instead, Friday, USC canceled all the other outside commencement appearances at the upcoming May 10 ceremony. The others who were to have received honorary degrees, tennis legend Billie Jean King, Jon M. Chu, director of the hit film "Crazy Rich Asians," National Endowment for the Arts chair Maria Rosario Jackson, and National Academy of Sciences president Marcia McNutt.

In a letter posted on its Web site, the university wrote that, "Given the highly publicized circumstances surrounding our main-stage commencement program, it made the decision to release our outside speakers and honorees from attending this year's ceremony. We've been talking to this exceptional group and hope to confer these honorary degrees at a future commencement or other academic ceremonies."

Really? The "L.A. Times" reports that USC declined to offer an explanatory interview with president Carol Folt, who a representative earlier this week said have the final decision on the Tabassum cancellation and security matters. What kind of lesson does this in part to the graduating class?

I'm privileged to be delivering a commencement speech again this year, May 18, Dickinson College. It will be my fifth. Dickinson was the first college to be founded after the formation of the United States. I can tell you this is not an easy gig determining something consequential to say in the span of under 15 minutes but it's an important tradition. And it will be a sad day if USC's move is replicated across campuses in the nation. In the "L.A. Times'" op-ed piece called "USC Got It Wrong" UCLA professor of Jewish history David Myers, and president of the Muslim Public Affairs Council, Salam Al- Marayati wrote this.

"We will not move past the crisis of the moment by silencing those with whom we disagree. The university is exactly the sort of place where such views must be heard.

[09:50:01]

Otherwise, it is not a university." You know what? I might quote that in my speech.

Still to come, more of your best and worst social media comments, and don't forget to vote on today's poll question at Smerconish.com. Will Trump testify?

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

SMERCONISH: All right. There it is at least at -- wow. Decisive. Will Trump testify? Thirty-one thousand and change.

[09:55:00]

Eighty-one percent saying, hey, when he said he would, he didn't mean it. I don't know. We're going to see how it all plays out.

As I said, I think, it will a game-time-decision. I think he's got to wait and see how the trial unfolds. There are things that his lawyers need to bring out in cross examination that if they can't may force his hand. But he's smart enough in a courtroom context to know that in a criminal case you didn't want to get on that stand.

Quickly. Social media reaction. What do we have? Maybe it has come from USC. I don't know.

If Trump wins this case, there is no way he losses the election.

Well, he's not going to win the case, right? It's not as if there's going to -- in my opinion there's not going to be an outright acquittal. I see zero prospect that 12 jurors come back and they -- and they say, not guilty.

But there is the prospect of a hung jury so it's all going to be predicated by how long they are out. I think that's going to be the real big tell in this case.

CNN will have it all covered, I'm sure, come Monday. Thanks for watching. See you next week.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)