Return to Transcripts main page
CNN News Central
Jury Selection Challenges in Trump Hush Money Trial; Endorsement for President Biden by the Kennedy Family; Speaker Mike Johnson's Leadership Test Over Foreign Aid; Columbia University Protest Leads to Arrests; Debate over Immigration and Foreign Aid in Congress; Potential Changes to House Rules Regarding Speaker Removal. Aired 2-2:30p ET
Aired April 18, 2024 - 14:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
[14:00:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
JESSICA DEAN, CNN HOST: The scramble to seat a jury in the criminal Hush Money trial of Donald Trump. Now two jurors have been excused. And we're seeing the melting pot of New York City come into play here. We're following all the details. Plus, will Speaker Mike Johnson pay for a foreign aid package with his job. As he moves forward with a deal that could provide aid to Ukraine and Israel, he's also infuriating conservative critics in Congress.
BORIS SANCHEZ, CNN HOST: And a unique endorsement for President Biden. Members of the Kennedy family coming out strongly for him and also who they're not backing may be just as important. We're following these major developing stories and many more. Here's CNN News Central.
DEAN: In just minutes, a small group of prospective jurors in the Trump hush money trial will be back in front of the judge and in front of former president-turned-criminal defendant Donald Trump as we've been getting a real-time look at what is sometimes a topsy-turvy process. Today, two jurors who were seated earlier this week were dismissed from the trial. One over concerns about identifying information that was made public. The other related to prosecutors' concerns about the veracity of their answers. Now, the judge wants a total of 18 jurors in this case, including alternates, and right now we have five impaneled for the trial. Let's check back in with CNN chief legal analyst Laura Coates who is outside the court. Laura, you have been monitoring this since it started. What are we expecting once they get back from lunch?
LAURA COATES, CNN CHIEF LEGAL ANALYST: It's been quite a day. We started the day with having seven, only having to get to 11 more jurors, those including the 12, you have to have, and then the six alternates, only to find that at least two now who are already seated have now been dismissed for some type of a cause. It's important to know that after lunch, the lunch break concludes around 2.15 today, they're going to come back to questions from both the prosecution and the defense. The 18 who were sitting in what's known as the jury box now, having left the well of the audience and now sitting in the box for about a 30-minute period asking questions similar to what we saw the other day, questions perhaps about social media, questions that give you more detail about the nuance of the questions they've already answered and trying to get an understanding of whether they could indeed be impartial. Interestingly enough, there's a lot of world politics that is now playing into all of this. We had at least one juror earlier who was dismissed because he believes he could not be impartial, Jessica, because he is born and raised in Italy and that the Italian media, he says, has really put a split screen of Donald Trump and the late Prime Minister Berlusconi, who himself, had corruption and sex scandals. So now you're seeing world politics and media coming into play even in a local Manhattan courtroom.
DEAN: Yeah, it is all so interesting. And Laura, originally the judge was kind of eyeing Monday for potentially having opening statements. Do you think we're still on track for that or we don't know at this point?
COATES: You know, I think we're likely not on track for Monday start of day opening statements, although stranger things have happened. Had you asked anyone yesterday, the pacing of the seven already being impaneled gave every indication that perhaps by Friday at the end and close of court, you might indeed have the ability to prepare for the weekend as defense and prosecution and prepare for the prosecution's case in chief to start on Monday. But now that we've taken essentially one step forward, two jurors back, now the question looms very large about whether an inadvertent delay could actually occur. We also have the judge apparently has been critical of the media for what he believes, potentially providing details that were too detailed about the jurors in this case, although CNN has been very cautious to limit to a bare bones recitation of the jurors to preserve the anonymity. But the concern is that there might be prospective jurors and including one juror who was already seated today who essentially called in and said, listen, I believe that my anonymity has been compromised and therefore I can no longer be truly impartial.
[14:05:09]
So that is a perhaps an unexpected delay, although some question perhaps whether there weren't more guardrails in place in the first instance.
DEAN: Yeah. All right. Laura Coates for us outside court, which is set to begin and pick back up here in just a few moments. We'll check back in with you, Laura. Thanks so much, Boris.
SANCHEZ: Let's dig deeper on the selection process with jury consultant Carolyn Cook. Carolyn, so juror number two, the first one to be seated and then dismissed after saying that aspects of her identity were revealed. Given that there are so few cases that get this kind of attention, how common is that for that to be a concern for a juror?
CAROLYN KOCH, JURY CONSULTANT: Well, I think it's somewhat common in criminal cases. If you think about cases that involve serious crimes and everything is reported on the media all the time. So, you know, even poor Gabby Marshall, who played for UConn, I'm sorry for Iowa. I mean, she got death threats. So I think people people get skittish. And I think it's totally normal. And it really underscores that this is no ordinary trial. And I think it also underscores that the process that they have adopted to select jurors or deselect them, it's got some problems. And if you're trying if you're disqualifying people after you've already vetted them, I think that's a symptom of a problem.
SANCHEZ: Let's expand on that. And specifically, I want to ask about this other juror that was excused, because he had been impaneled on the jury and then further investigation discovered that he'd previously gotten in trouble with the law for destroying yard signs, political campaign signs. Is that something that would have come up earlier in researching a juror? Or is that just kind of something that naturally comes about later when more research is done?
KOCH: Well, here's the thing, like in my experience in cases that were high profile involving political issues or serious crimes, and questionnaires were being used, they were written questionnaires that the lawyers got in advance. And so both sides weren't scrambling in open court with lots of people there trying to on the spot figure things out. They had time in advance to really scour the landscape to make sure that on the day of jury selection, people are properly vetted. So you're not going to have surprises like that. So again, I think it's the way this particular jury selection was set up. From my own professional opinion of looking at the questions, it struck me as a system designed to not really learn that much about prospective jurors unless they've got the gumption to raise their hand and say, you know what? It's hard for jurors to say that. I can't be fair. This happened, full disclosure. That's why a written questionnaire is so much better than the process they've adopted in this case.
SANCHEZ: Why do you think this process was adopted? Is that a symptom to you of incompetence? Or do you think it was deliberate for some reason?
KOCH: Well, you know what? I don't, it's probably neither. I think what people don't realize is that jury selection, it's a rare part of a lawyer's practice. And a lot of people, people don't have the time and the opportunity to come up with, how can this work? How can this be efficient? How can jurors really feel comfortable disclosing something that can be so, you know, this case is unlike all others. This case is huge. And I think this process is underscoring. I don't think people really realize how big it really is. So hindsight is 20- 20. A lot of judges have never used written questionnaires before. So, and it's a lot like, legislation, it just becomes this process where people think it's a good idea. They sign onto it and before you know it, that's what you're doing. You get into a rhythm and, you know, that's why they're losing people though.
SANCHEZ: Yeah. The map is not always the territory as we've seen. Quickly, Carolyn, both sides have four of those peremptory strikes remaining. What's the strategy going into today before deciding that they want to file one of those strikes or use one of those strikes? KOCH: Well, I think. I think both sides probably already have their strategies all mapped out and, you know, both sides are going to look for people they can't live with. Who's going to keep me up at night? Who's going to prevent me from winning this case? And, you know, for, I don't know if the questions are really capable of, you know, if they're being asked in this questionnaire, but, you know, the Trump side is going to want those jurors who are very uncomfortable with this process, who don't really want to decide this case. I would be very uncomfortable with somebody who is eager to get on in a case like this one.
[14:10:09]
And people who are just not happy with the way Trump has been treated, that's just kind of obvious. From the government's perspective, they might get an inkling that somebody thinks that this is just too much meddling or the timing is just suspicious. Or again, that I think both sides have to be worried about jurors who just don't want the responsibility. And what's happened with juror number two, if others start to get wind of that, I think people are going to start to get the jitters. And if I'm on the defense side of it, that's going to make me extremely happy because any unraveling of this is in my best interest as a defendant. Carolyn Koch, appreciate your perspective. Thanks for being with us.
KOCH: Thank you.
SANCHEZ: Still ahead, Speaker Mike Johnson's plan for advancing billions of dollars in foreign aid could wind up costing him his job. But he says, quote, when you do the right thing, you let the chips fall where they may. We're going to talk to a Republican congresswoman about whether she thinks he's doing the right thing. Plus, bad news. If you are looking to buy a home, mortgage rates are at their highest level in months. The details on those numbers and two Arizona state senators crossed the aisle voting with Democrats in the effort to repeal that state civil war abortion ban. Those stories and much more. Coming up on CNN News Central.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[14:15:09]
SANCHEZ: Speaker Mike Johnson will hold on to his job, at least for now. The House is done for the day, meaning that no one can pull the trigger on ousting him until tomorrow at the earliest. But he's still caught between factions within his party. On one side, some rank-and- file Republicans are urging him to make it more difficult to remove a speaker by raising the necessary threshold to move forward that motion to vacate. It currently takes a single member to do so. On the other side, a number of Republican hardliners want him out over his plans for that proposed foreign aid package, which includes billions of dollars for Ukraine. Johnson has said he plans to put the bills up for a full vote this Saturday. CNN's Manu Raju is live for us on Capitol Hill. Manu, of course, all of this is unfolding with the backdrop of this foreign aid that folks have been calling on, Johnson, to put on the House floor now for several months. Is this ultimately putting his job in jeopardy?
MANU RAJU, CNN CHIEF CONGRESSIONAL COORRESPONDENT: Yeah, this is taking on the hard right of the House Republican Conference and essentially deciding it was time to work with Democrats to get this over the finish line and potentially have Democrats save him from this revolt on the far right that could threaten his hold on the speakership. Now, the question for Johnson and for the leadership, is whether or not they will decide to move forward with changing the House rules to make it harder to throw out a sitting speaker. That is under consideration right now. There are active discussions ongoing in the House to do that as part of this process to move to the final vote on this foreign aid package.
That has not been resolved yet, but that has caused enormous tension in the ranks and also has caused some of the members to consider trying to move ahead, trying to force that vote, calling for Johnson's ouster as he weighs whether or not to make this significant change, this rule that was used last fall to throw out Kevin McCarthy that now these detractors on the right are using to potentially throw out Mike Johnson. Now, Mike Johnson has decided to move ahead with this foreign aid package that will be split up into several different proposals, Israel aid, Ukraine aid, Taiwan aid, and some other measures as well. But ultimately, it will be all wrapped up as one big package and sent over to the Senate. What it will not include is border security provisions that he initially said would be essential to moving forward with any Ukraine aid, but he couldn't get the votes to do that, so he set that aside and is moving that on a separate track, and those hardliners are the ones who are furious at that decision. Now, in talking to some of the people who are aligned with Mike Johnson, they are making very clear that he should take on the far right, and they are saying there should be repercussions for those who are warning that they may try to oust him.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
REP. MIKE LAWLER, (R) (NY): That committee is there to advance the cause of the majority. That committee is not there to advance the cause of Chip Roy or Thomas Massey or Ralph Norman. And so if they're incapable, if they're incapable of doing the job, they're not entitled to that spot. And so they should resign if they're unable to fulfill the duties of that committee. And if they refuse to, they should be removed.
REP. ANTHONY D'ESPOSITO (R-NY): There needs to start being repercussions for those who completely alienate the will of that conference. People gave us the majority because they wanted Republicans to govern, not because they wanted Republicans to lead us to a halt.
REP. DON BACON (R-NE): So they don't represent the 215 or 210 of us right. We're trying to get things done. We want to work as a team with these guys. It's not good enough just to vote no. They want to stop any vote.
(END VIDEO CLIP) RAJU: Now, there's still a lot of questions about the timing of this when Marjorie Taylor Greene, for one, will try to force a vote seeking Mike Johnson's ouster. And then what will Democrats do that is still undecided at this key moment about whether to save Mike Johnson's job. Boris.
SANCHEZ: Manu Raju live for us on Capitol Hill. Thank you so much, Manu. We want to get to some breaking news right now outside of Columbia University in New York.
[14:20:09]
Police have entered the university campus to disperse a pro- Palestinian protest there. You can see some of the protesters were taken into custody in video that has just arrived into CNN. CNN senior crime and justice correspondent Shimon Prokupecz is there right now as this is unfolding. Shimon, this comes after police told protesters they would be arrested if they didn't disperse. It also comes one day after the university president testified about anti-Semitic activity on campus before Congress. What are you seeing there? What are you hearing from folks on the ground?
SHIMON PROKUPECZ, CNN SENIOR CRIME AND JUSTICE CORRESPONDENT: Right. So a lot of the protesters have now gathered here because behind me, Boris, as you can see, I hope Frank's going to try to get your shot. There are several NYPD buses here because the group, they were all inside the campus. They had sent a set up encampments on the campus. And then around one o'clock, the university president ordered, asked the NYPD to come in and start making arrests. And we're told about 30 people or so at this point, at least 30 have been arrested. And they have been brought over to this area about two blocks away from the school. And this is where they're being processed. So this is why many of the protesters have gathered here. We're being told by the NYPD, now that at any moment that this group here, there's probably about 200 or so here, are going to be told that they have to leave, that they're going to have to get out of the street and onto the sidewalk.
So potentially we could see more arrests out here. I want to just set the scene here for you. You can see some more of the, there are NYPD officers lined up across here, ready to move the crowd onto the sidewalk. And there are also more NYPD officers across the street here. They're all wearing helmets and potentially just ready for any activity that they're going to be ordered to take. We do expect for this group to be ordered off the streets here and onto the sidewalks and be threatened with potential arrests. That should happen at any point. You know, when you ask some of the students here what they want, you know, these are pro-Palestinian protesters. They feel that the university is not doing enough to support them, to support their views.
And so they have set up camp inside the school. And things were relatively okay for quite some time. And then for whatever reason, the university president ordered that the area around, in the middle of the school be cleared. And that is when the NYPD moved in. And it's certainly an escalation in this, because for the most part, they've been allowed to be here, allowed to be inside the school, on school grounds, protesting. But today, that, for whatever reason, has changed. But as you can see here, Boris, they continue to be out here. They are chanting. They are protesting. And they came to this area to support those who have been arrested. So we wait to see here what the NYPD does with those that have gathered here on the street. But this is now, you know, going to continue likely for several hours with the NYPD outside here, as they continue to process the people who've been arrested on the bus here.
SANCHEZ: Some tense scenes there on the campus of Columbia University. One of many that we've seen, this perhaps the most dramatic thus far on a college campus in the United States since October 7th and Israel's response to the Hamas attack leading to the war in Gaza. Shimon, keep us up to speed on what you're seeing there on campus. We'll of course continue to monitor this and bring you the very latest as we get it. Jessica.
DEAN: All right, let's go back to Capitol Hill now where there is a lot of information unfolding. Joining us now is Republican Congresswoman Nicole Malliotakis of New York. She's also a member of the leadership team as Assistant Whip. Congresswoman, thank you so much for being here, for making time on what I know is such a very busy day. I want to start first with what you said on the House floor yesterday. So let's listen to that clip and then we'll talk more about it.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
REP. NICOLE MALLIOTAKIS (R-NY): I believe our speaker needs to go back to Joe Biden and Chuck Schumer and say if we're going to pass foreign aid, we must have at least, at least a few commonsense border protection measures in there.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
DEAN: Now, it does not appear like that's going to happen. You are an assistant whip in the conference. Are you willing to whip for a bill you don't fully support?
MALLIOTAKIS: I've already let the speaker know that I am very concerned. And look, we have to see how this actual bill comes down to us and what amendments are going to be there.
[14:25:09]
But for me, it does not make sense for us to be moving forward without anything that actually protects our own national security. I want to support our allies, but we have to also make sure that as threats rise against the United States, I mean, Iran is saying straight out they want to attack Americans on U.S. soil. We're seeing growing threats from Russia and Communist China as well. Hundreds of terrorists caught at our border or some in the interior. And we have two million getaways that have entered this country with no interaction to government officials or law enforcement. So we don't know who they are, where they are, or what their intentions are. And quite frankly, as a New York City representative in a post-9-11 world, I get very concerned. If we do not secure our border, what could potentially happen? So that needs to be part of this package.
And I think that the speaker should continue to push Senator Schumer and the president to do the same thing. Just reverse some of the executive orders that the president put in place that have created what has been a crisis, not just for the country, but for cities like mine, where we have convicted criminals on the streets. We have people who are gang members, over 1,200 at least. People have been arrested that are in these migrant shelters because they've committed crimes. The fentanyl that's killing Americans. We need to take action. And this can't wait either. Our national security is at risk as well. We want to support our allies. We need to do the right thing for our country.
DEAN: And I hear what you're saying. The House did pass that bill. The Senate's not taking it up. Republicans killed a bipartisan Senate bill that would have solved some issues. President Biden is considering some executive actions. But the courts have ruled he can't reinstate some of the Trump-era measures. So that kind of is the state of play. It's a stalemate on immigration coming from Capitol Hill. And time is of the essence on these aid packages. So what other choice does Mike? Johnson have?
MALLIOTAKIS: So what I would argue is that the president made 60 executive order policy changes when he came into office. He can use the same discretion to reverse some of those policies. Do you know that Secretary Mayorkas sent a memo to Customs and Border Protection agents telling them that if somebody is a convicted criminal, that that alone is not enough to deport him? That's wrong. So even getting an agreement to reverse some of that.
(CROSSTALK)
DEAN: Congresswoan, congresswoman, I'm sorry to interrupt you, I just want to push the point there, though. But what- But it is all happening. But at this moment in time. They've the time is of the essence on these the funding for these aid and that is and this stuff has not gotten worked out in months.
MALLIOTAKIS: Yeah, but that is why I'm making the case that, you know, Senator Schumer and the president should be giving a little. They see what's happening to our country. Do they not see the drug cartels profiting billions of dollars by human trafficking and drug trafficking? Do they not see 100,000 Americans dying from FET?
(CROSSTALK)
DEAN: Well they did try to pass that package in the Senate.
MALLIOTAKIS: Why will they not work with us?
DEAN: Well, they did try to pass some--
MALLIOTAKIS: No they did not actually.
DEAN: Well, because the former president-
MALLIOTAKIS: But the thing is--
DEAN: -- told them to kill it. So I'm just saying,--
MALLIOTAKIS: No that's not what- that's not that's not what happened. First of all--
(CROSSTALK)
DEAN: --and Kyrsten Sinema and Chris Murphy, it was a bipartisan piece of legislation.
MALLIOTAKIS: And we have a bipartisan piece of legislation in the House as well. In fact, some of our border security bills have passed with bipartisan support and Senator Schumer refuses to take them up. In fact, Senator Schumer did not pass this bipartisan bill that you mentioned in the Senate at all, or else we could have potentially had some real negotiation. But the bottom line here is all I think Americans are asking for, certainly my constituents are asking for, common sense measure. Let's just say if we even put something in the language that just says if you are a convicted criminal or a known gang member, you are not to be released into the interior. That would make a big difference. But that's that's even something like that. We have a hard time extracting from the Democrats. I have a hard time believing that the Democrats wouldn't even do that for this country.
DEAN: Okay
MALLIOTAKIS: And, you know, again, he has the power to make some changes here the president. So, you know, he should work with us to do that.
DEAN: OK, so just if we can set that aside for one second, I do want to know there is a threat to the Speaker Johnson's speakership. And I know you said just just a few minutes ago that you and I want to make sure I'm getting this right, that you you don't support ousting him. You do support changing that rule on the motion to vacate, which Kevin McCarthy negotiated down to just one person. Do you think that- where do you think things stand right now? Because this continues to evolve. What are you hearing?
MALLIOTAKIS: Well, I think there are there are members that are rallying support for increasing the number to motion to vacate. I would agree with them on that. I do not as much as I disagree with the speaker on this issue and how it's been handled. I would say that we do we do not as Republicans or the Congress or the country benefit from another motion to vacate. We can have this fight in January when we return with a new Congress. But we don't gain anything. And it's not in the best interest of governing to spend a couple more weeks wasting time to find someone because no one's going to have consensus at the end of the day. We know that. But I do think that this shows what a mistake it was to remove Kevin McCarthy.
