Return to Transcripts main page

CNN News Central

Israeli War Cabinet Meeting About Iranian Attack; "Rust" Armorer To Be Sentenced In Mexico; Senior Official: US Was Told Israeli Response Will Be Limited In Scope; Book Bans On The Rise In US Public School Libraries. Aired 8-8:30a ET

Aired April 16, 2024 - 08:00   ET

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

[08:00:00]

MAX BOOT, COLUMNIST, "THE WASHINGTON POST": When it has other countries on its side.

JOHN BERMAN, CNN HOST: Max Boot, great to see you this morning. Thank you very much.

We are getting some new reporting as Donald Trump shortly will head to a New York City courtroom for his criminal trial. A new hour of CNN NEWS CENTRAL starts now.

KATE BOLDUAN, CNN HOST: Donald Trump back in court, the new challenges today facing his legal team and the prosecution to get a jury seated and get this trial off the ground.

President Biden, he's hitting the campaign trail today, trying to tout, again, his economic agenda, also trying to paint Donald Trump as an out-of-touch rich man as part of his campaign strategy.

Book bans are on rise still at public schools across the country, but one school district has banned more books than all of them combined.

I'm Kate Bolduan with John Berman. Sara Sidner is out. This is CNN NEWS CENTRAL.

BERMAN: All right, happening now, that is Trump Tower at 8:00 a.m. eastern time. We are waiting to see Donald Trump for the first time this morning before he leaves for his historic criminal trial. We're waiting to see if he speaks. We're waiting to see if he stays awake. He appeared to nod off during the trial yesterday during jury selection. And we are waiting to see when and if they can select a single juror this morning.

Trump, of course, is accused of falsifying business records to cover up an alleged affair with an adult film star. And this morning, brand new details on where the juror selection process goes and how the Trump team plans to keep a delay strategy going.

CNN's Kristen Holmes outside the courthouse. Trump will arrive presumably sometime in the next hour or so. What do you expect today Kristen? KRISTEN HOLMES, CNN CORRESPONDENT: John, I can tell you that speaking

to senior advisers last night, the thing that they were most upset about after that jury selection process yesterday was the fact that there reports that Donald Trump was nodding off.

They insist that he was not at any time sleeping, saying that he was just closing his eyes, he was taking it in, he was rocking back in his chair, also insisting that no one actually really knew anyone who had been reporting that was in the courtroom. They were just going off of a feed. Again, this was clearly what they were upset about after the first day of this trial of the jury the selection.

So let's do a quick recap as to what we saw yesterday. We saw this jury selection process actually start around 2:30, 96 jurors were brought in, 50 of them were immediately dismissed, saying they could not be fair or impartial in this case. So then that left another nine saying that they just couldn't participate. They did not give any reason for it.

Then it whittled down just based on the questionnaire. We are still not done with that first group of 96 today. Today we're going to see 32 jurors go through that questionnaire process trying to, again, find a single juror. About nine people full have gotten through the first round, but just remember, this is not the nine people that are going to make up the jury. This is just round one. We are talking about people who still have to go through cross-examination, the voir dire, by both sides.

Also, both sides get 10 people that without any reasoning they can just dismiss. We're not even close to that yet. So today we expect another 100 jurors to be brought in for vetting. And again, this all starts with the judge. He goes through that questionnaire that we have talked about at length, asking people just the simple basics of where you're from, what kind of news you consume, but also getting into the details of how this could be political, asking have you ever been to a Trump rally? Have you ever worked for Donald Trump? Have you ever been to anti-Trump rally?

And this is expected, again, to weed out an enormous amount of people, particularly here in Manhattan. I'll tell you, yesterday, even Trump's team was surprised that 50 people were immediately dismissed. They thought that number would be closer to 30, maybe 40. But the fact that it was over 50 percent of that 96, they were even surprised to see that. So we'll see how this all plays out today.

One thing I'm watching, Donald Trump in the courtroom. Remember, today now is only going to be jury selection. We saw that whole full morning yesterday of discussion over schedule, of questions. That's not what today is. How is Donald Trump going to react to just sitting in this courtroom for hours and hours on end watching these people essentially talk about him with no participation. That'll be something to see. It's going to be very hard for someone like Donald Trump who really wants to be part of everything, John.

BERMAN: Another 100 jurors just got off the train, my favorite Stephen Sondheim song. Kristen Holmes, great to see you outside the courthouse. Thank you very much. Kate?

BOLDUAN: Is that exactly how it went?

Joining us right now, criminal defense attorney and former federal prosecutor, Seth Waxman. Thanks so much for coming in, Seth. So based on how things went yesterday, how long do you anticipate jury selection to last? Would you venture to guess that they're going to seat a single juror today?

[08:05:01]

SETH WAXMAN, CRIMINAL DEFENSE ATTORNEY: That may not happen. I would expect this jury selection process to go on for at least another couple, few days to a week, or maybe even more. Some people estimate we could still be looking at this by the time Memorial Day rolls around.

BOLDUAN: More than half, as Kristen and John were just talking about, more than half of the first group of prospective jurors dismissed almost immediately, saying that they could not be unbiased in hearing the case. Did that surprise you? I've gotten mixed reactions from this. It's either quite rare to have a fail rate of over 50 percent, or this is just part of the process and this is a high-profile case. What do you think?

WAXMAN: I view this as glass is half-full. If you had asked me if you looked across this country to jury pools and told the jury that, look, you can leave for essentially any reason at all. You can say you're not going to be fair and impartial or you can't be, and I, the judge, I'm not going to pull you up to the bench. I'm not going to scrutinize you, you can just walk out, essentially get a free pass, I would think that a lot of jurors would say, oh, I can be with my wife, my kids, my job, my husband. I'm out of here.

But in this case, we had nearly half that remaining. They answered that fundamental question that they could be fair and impartial, and that is really the biggest hurdle. So I was emboldened to the idea that we have half, essentially half a jury pool in the first day that says that they can sit in on this case.

BOLDUAN: Glass half full. I mean, that's -- we rarely get that, Seth. You're going to have to stick around for us and hang with us for a while.

WAXMAN: Positive thinking, right, positive thinking.

(LAUGHTER)

BOLDUAN: Before jury selection began -- John, I'm sorry about this. Most of the morning I had to deal with picking up loose ends. I'm going to call it that. But dealing with some important questions about what evidence and testimony the jury is going to be allowed to hear and see, one of the pieces of evidence in question was that infamous "Access Hollywood" tape. The judge says it cannot be played in court. It can be discussed. Thats kind of upholding a prior decision they've made. That is a win for which side? What do you think of that decision?

WAXMAN: Yes, I think it struck the right balance. Look, Donald Trump and his team do not want that evidence coming in, and that talks about things that are highly prejudicial, essentially intimating about some tort sort of sexual assault. That is not what this case is about. This is about a false business records case. So I thought the judge struck the right balance, only allowing certain evidence to come in, but excluding what would be considered highly prejudicial. And the judge and the parties are also very focused on an appeal. And so the judge is trying to eliminate potential areas of appeal and keep this trial focused on the key issues that are at play.

BOLDUAN: Seth, Donald Trump has been really focused on the gag order, saying that they're silencing him and he can't speak up. That is not accurate. The gag order is specifically tailored to he can't comment or criticize family members of kind of those involved with the case or potential witnesses.

So they now have -- with that in mind, they now have a separate hearing scheduled for next week, kind of like a trial within a trial, to determine if Trump has violated the gag order. Prosecutors say it's because of comments that he's made about Michael Cohen, a potential witness, and also on Monday, Trump reshared a video of a far-right activist criticizing the judge's wife. What's going to happen here?

WAXMAN: Yes. I mean, I don't think there's any doubt that he violated the letter of the judge's gag order by calling Michael Cohen a sleazebags, for example. The practical way this will play out is difficult for a judge. I mean, the ultimate remedy a judge has is to incarcerate a defendant --

BOLDUAN: Right.

WAXMAN: -- who is violating the court order or flouting a gag order. But that's not realistic in this case. I know that the prosecution has asked for a thief $3,000 financial penalty, query whether $3,000 has any impact or even registers with Donald Trump. So I think the judge is going to hold this hearing to make it clear that he's not going to just let things go. But what ultimately happens to Donald Trump is maybe more of a slap on the wrist, but the judge is going to do everything he can to keep this trial moving forward and in compliance with the rules that he lays down.

BOLDUAN: Yes. And keep a handle on it all. Seth Waxman, it's good to see you. Thank you.

John?

BERMAN: A new delay tactic in Donald Trump's federal election subversion case, what he just asked the Supreme Court. And CNN has just learned the U.S. has been told Israel's response to Iran will be, quote, "limited in scope." So the Israeli war cabinet is meeting right now. We are standing by for news.

And today, Scott Peterson will be in court more than 20 years after he was convicted of the murders of his wife and unborn child. Could he actually be exonerated?

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[08:14:19]

BERMAN: "Limited in scope," that is what a senior U.S. official says they were told about a potential Israeli military response to Iran. This is new reporting just in from Alex Marquardt, that the response a U.S. official has been told will be limited in scope. The Israeli war cabinet meeting behind closed doors right now. We're waiting for new information about what comes out of that meeting. In the meantime, with me, CNN military analyst, retired U.S. Air Force Colonel Cedric Leighton. We've got a map here which shows Iran, which shows Israel, which shows the region. Limited in scope, what could that mean?

COL. CEDRIC LEIGHTON (RET), CNN MILITARY ANALYST: Well, John, there are a lot of different possibilities here. For example, the Israelis could decide to go into Iran with some airstrikes along the coast, one possibility.

BERMAN: That doesn't feel limited, though.

[08:15:06]

LEIGHTON: Not really. But the other thing that they could do is do something in the cyber realm, and if you networks in Tehran and in some of the other areas around here, you could perhaps have a limited impact, and then that would be it.

But that doesn't go boom. It is not a kinetic thing, and if it doesn't do that, if it doesn't have an explosive effect, there may be limited political utility to something like that, which is also a consideration for this kind of a response.

BERMAN: There is obviously a political strategic component to this that goes beyond the military here.

I just wanted -- David Ignatius of "The Washington Post" said what Israel is trying to deal with here is they would like to retaliate and maybe not escalate.

The question is, is that even possible? Can you do anything that Iran won't then say, okay, game on?

LEIGHTON: Yes, I think that is one of the big problems because Iran was really talking about when they did their response to the Israeli attack in Damascus with the 350 or so projectiles that they lobbed against Israel, what Iran said afterwards was okay, we are done. It is all over now, you don't have to respond.

But that is not how the Israelis see it. Israelis feel that they have to do something. And if the Israelis do something, the natural tendency for the Iranians is to do something in return. In other words, we are in that ladder of escalation. The possibility exists that this could go on for a while. But if both sides are taken off that ladder of escalation, it could be quite different and you could end up with a scenario where they kind of stop this particular process. But the conflict between Israel and Iran is going to go on no matter what happens in this specific instance.

BERMAN: Something -- you mentioned, the possibility here and I am just showing this as the range of possibilities here. This has not happened just so people know, attacks maybe along the Iranian coast here.

The idea that you need something that as you said, goes boom and I know you don't mean that lightly because part of this is that Israel, if it decides it wants to do something, it needs to send a message it feels.

Why? Why would it feel it needs to send a message when the whole world saw that it was able to repel this attack from Iran.

LEIGHTON: So one of the things that we have to keep in mind, John, is that they want to make sure that the Iranians understand that not only does Israel have a defensive capability, but it also has and continues to have an offensive capability, and that could potentially mean for example, taking an aircraft and even deploying them along the border. In other words, flying them up to this point and then turning them back. That is a possibility without striking anything.

That is also a possible scenario that they could do. We do a lot of that all of the time, but of course the tensions aren't that high when we say going against Russia or China, or some country like that.

So if the Israelis decide to do something in that realm, that could potentially serve to de-escalate the situation.

BERMAN: A show of force, a visible show a force.

And just lastly, because you know, I am not even sure that in the scheme of everything that has received quite enough attention is just the international effort to repel this attack from Iran.

You have jets from the US, France, Britain, Jordan, not to mention possible intelligence from other Arab nations here obviously, being able to strike down a lot of these missiles when they were on their way here. How replicable is that going forward?

LEIGHTON: So that is a really interesting question because in some ways, the coalition, if you will, this ad hoc coalition that came together with all of the countries that you've mentioned was something that was done in response to this specific instance.

The idea of moving this forward, in essence, having a 2.0 of this particular effort, it is possible, but it would require the deployment of assets on a continual basis into the Middle East and countries like France and the UK don't necessarily have the sustainment capability that we have because they don't have all the forward basis that we have.

They could do it, but they would have to be prepared to do it and they would have to plan for it.

BERMAN: Colonel Cedric Leighton, great to see you in-person here today. Thank you very much for that.

LEIGHTON: You bet.

BERMAN: This morning, gender affirming care for minors is illegal in one state for now after the Supreme Court cleared the way for a ban.

And book bans in public schools are on the rise. Why one district far outpaces that anywhere else in the country?

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[08:23:38]

BOLDUAN: Book bans on the rise in public schools across the country. One state is leading the way in a big way. New report out this morning shows Florida is responsible for the majority of the more than 4,300 book bans implemented over the last school year.

So what is in these numbers?

CNN's Carlos Suarez has new reporting on this.

Carlos, what are you learning?

CARLOS SUAREZ, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Well, Kate, good morning.

So this new report that is out really highlights just how this issue is not going away here in Florida and in other states across the country, the report by a Pen America, this writer advocacy group shows just how much of a situation a lot of school districts across the US are dealing with right now.

According to Pen America, from July to December of 2023, there were 4,349 instances of these so-called the book bans, that number throughout the school year of 2022 and 2023 was 3,362 and when you look at the numbers as they existed back in 2021, when a lot t of these changes started to take place, you can see that were talking about nearly double the number of cases involving all of these books.

Now, state education officials here in Florida say that these numbers are significantly lower according to them, but they recognize that nearly half of these so-called book bans in Florida have come from just two school districts here in Florida.

[08:25:10]

Just yesterday, in fact, Governor Ron DeSantis acknowledged how much of a situation this has become here in Florida. He said, he is going to sign a law, a bill rather that would make law essentially limiting the number of book challenges that people without kids in a school district can make. It is important to note here, Kate, that Republicans in Florida were the ones that passed a law allowing anyone essentially to challenge a book because it may not be appropriate for school children and they did so with the backing of Governor DeSantis.

BOLDUAN: That's quite a statement considering that Ron DeSantis made this such a thing. If he now seems to maybe be suggesting that its getting a little bit out of hand even by their standard -- his standards, that's quite a statement.

Carlos, thank you very much.

So coming up for us, Mike Johnson is headed for a showdown with Republican hardliners in his conference. The strategy he is now going to try and he is going to try to thread the impossible needle when it comes to getting Ukraine aid and Israel aid approved and also keeping his party from revolting against him.

Gronk throws out a first pitch and does it in the only way Gronk can.