Return to Transcripts main page

CNN News Central

Full Jury Panel Selected For Trump's Criminal Trial; Sandoval Hearing Expected Ahead of Trump Trial Start; GOP Hardliners Seethe As Johnson Moves Foreign Aid Plan Ahead; Rep. Anthony D'Esposito (R-NY) Discusses $95B Foreign Aid Package Advancing To House Floor. Aired 2:30-3p ET

Aired April 19, 2024 - 14:30   ET

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

[14:30:00]

LAURA COATES, CNN CHIEF LEGAL ANALYST: And of course, the 12 jurors who were already seated and will actually be the ones to deliberate.

Now, those alternatives would be very important still, because those alternates will likely or might have a high opportunity to actually deliberate in full.

I want to get now to Kara Scannell, who has been in and out of the courtroom all day today on this, well, frankly, a surreal day.

But one of the surreal aspects of this includes an American president on trial, and he has been closely watching all the taking place.

KARA SCANNELL, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Yes, he has been -- we saw yesterday he was very engaged in jury selection, in the questions and the answers. Today -- he was -- he was slipping through papers on the desk.

But then when his lawyers started questioning the jurors and asking about their views of Donald Trump, he was very engaged. He had turned his chair again. He was craning his neck. He was looking, to look at the jurors as they were speaking and giving their opinions of him.

There were not as many people today in the jury box for the alternate that had as strong of opinions as we heard in the prior days of the questioning. But they did challenge a few on their social media posts going back several years.

But a lot of the jurors in the well said that they either had neutral views of him or they didn't -- essentially, they didn't have any real strong views.

And so this alternate process actually went pretty quickly once they got to the point where they had gone through all of the voir dire and all of the questioning of 22 jurors that were in the box.

But he was definitely engaged. He was looking at them all as they were responding to these questions to try to take the temperature of what they felt about him. COATES: What struck me, as compared to what happened in the initial 12 voir dire process trying to determine who could be impartial or not, remember, coming into all this, Donald Trump has said through his legal counsel he does not feel he could get a fair or impartial full jury here.

He thought that the voting practices of this overwhelmingly so-called blue city would not be to his benefit and that would be a detriment to him.

But were seeing in the process and over the course of the morning, there were a number of, at least in the alternate jury pool, a part of the overall part, who spoke about their affinity, for lack of a better word, for his policies, were not going to be pressured into not liking him.

And even when asked about how they viewed the potential for him being unfaithful in his marriage, they had interesting views. And I think Trump was leaning into it.

REID: Yes, I mean, the jury pool has been very diverse in terms of their views. It is not, as Trump had billed it to be, that it would be all of these Democrats and all of these people that dislike him.

And there are a number of people in finance and their opinions toward Trump tended to veer more favorable. They appreciated his -- his background as a businessman.

A lot of them said that they agreed with some of his policies, not maybe all of them. But one potential juror today had said that she liked his tax policies.

So there was a more balanced view that he might have thought going into this. A number of jurors had all read "The Art of the Deal," his book that he wrote many years ago.

You know, and it wasn't a knee-jerk reaction across the board. A number of jurors listen to both NPR -- one juror said he listened to NPR and also FOX News. And he kind of joked that there was a remarkable difference in the viewpoints of those programs.

But people seem to have kind of a more global sense of who he is. One person was trying to dissect him as he's a person, he's a politician, he's a businessman, and my views for each of those categories might be slightly different.

So people were, it seemed, trying to give honest answers about their viewpoints of him. And that really showed that people did not just have one solid view of him. It was a more nuanced view. Again, probably for most of the jury.

COATES: Now, if you are in the appellate world trying to look at this and put possibly an appeal, the process of whether there's an impartial jury or not, go through being struck for cause or otherwise.

Remember, at the very beginning of this, the judge said he would distinguish those who said they could not be impartial in a different category without asking follow-up questions compared to those who explained later in the voir dire process.

Those more seemingly impartial jurors might be problematic for an appeal if you're Trump.

But let's look ahead to the opening statements here. But that's a very important point. Now that you've got from the spectrum of jurors on this panel, if you're the prosecutor, if you're the defense attorney, you're going to now try to tailor your presentation of the evidence for the audience that's before you today.

And that includes those who might be leaning in favor of Trump and those who might be leaning away. But all ultimately, impartial.

REID: Right? I mean, that's the -- that's what all the jurors said, they would be able to look at this based on the evidence in the courtroom and put aside anything that they may have heard or read.

Because the judge has even said to them, and the prosecutors and the defense, we don't expect you to not have ever heard of this case. They said we don't expect you to be living under a rock.

But they just want to get the point to the jurors, and the jurors individually all and were asked the question of, could you put all that aside and just base your decision on what you hear in this courtroom?

And they also spent a lot of time talking about witness credibility. And if someone has changed their story, if they had one story at one point and then now were saying something different, could you evaluate that or would you have a preconceived bias that the person must be a liar or for that they must have changed their story for some other reason.

[14:35:06]

And they spent a lot of time, both sides, in trying to understand, for the prosecution, could you understand that someone could change their mind, and for defense -- and would you keep an open mind if this could be corroborated by documents.

Because a big part of this case is documents, falsification of documents. There's checks, invoices, general ledgers from the company. All of this is going to be a big piece of the evidence.

And Trump's lawyers trying to make the point to the jurors of maybe if someone changes their mind, there's a reason, and you shouldn't believe them. So they were really testing the jurors and their responses to this to see if they could keep an open mind.

I mean, there was a funny moment. One of the perspective jurors had said he, in his spare time, he tries to avoid reading documents. And so the prosecutor said there's a lot of documents in this case. But he joked. He just said he doesn't like to do that on weekends. COATES: Remember, Boris, Jessica, we're talking about 34 felony counts

of falsifying business records. You'd better believe documents are going to be a big part of this.

We expect on, presumably Monday -- that when we believe will happen for the oral or opening statements in this case -- that on Monday, you're going to have the defense team wanting to go immediately at the credibility of witnesses whose names may be familiar to the American audience, Stormy Daniels, David Pecker, Michael Cohen.

Meanwhile, you're going to want to have the prosecution focusing on the underlying charges. And of course, they've got to prove their case.

This is history in the making. And Monday might be opening statements in the first ever criminal trial for a former president of the United States of America.

BORIS SANCHEZ, CNN HOST: Yes, a huge moment, not just in American history, but also for the 2024 presidential campaign.

Laura Coates, Kara Scannell, outside the courthouse in Manhattan, thank you so much.

Next, setting up for a showdown in Congress. Will Republican Mike Johnson lose his speakership or will far-right members of his party lose their own power? We're going to ask a House Republican that very question in just moments.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[14:41:37]

JESSICA DEAN, CNN HOST: Right now, some conservative hardliners are seething after the House voted today to advance Speaker Mike Johnson's $95 billion foreign aid package. It is a significant step toward sending support to Ukraine and Israel and Taiwan.

But Johnson had to rely on Democrats to push that legislation forward, sparking an uproar among some members of his right flank.

And now, Johnson, may need Democrats to bail them out again, this time, to save his job. Some Republicans who are against sending more aid to Ukraine want to boot him from the speaker's chair as soon as tomorrow.

But today, House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries would not say whether Democrats would come to his rescue.

Joining us now is Republican Congressman Anthony D'Esposito of New York. He also serves on the Homeland Security Committee.

Congressman, thanks so much for being with us this afternoon. We appreciate your time.

I just want to start, first -- REP. ANTHONY D'ESPOSITO (R-NY): Thanks for having me.

DEAN: Yes -- by saying Democrats did something pretty rare in using their votes to help get this to the floor.

Yet it seems it's ultimately going to pass with pretty wide bipartisan support. What does this say about the situation and the current state of the House?

D'ESPOSITO: I think it shows that obviously it's a House that's divided, but that we have the ability, as Democrats and Republicans, to come together for the United States of America and our allies.

I think today was a perfect showing of democracy and how, again, Democrats and Republicans from all corners so this country could come together to do what's right.

And I praise Speaker Johnson, not because he's from my party, but because he's doing the right thing at the right time for -- for what's important to not only this nation, but again, but for our allies.

DEAN: And some people in your party want to punish him for that. And I want to get that in one second.

But before we get there, Ukraine aid was a major hang up for some in your party. Your Republican colleague, Michael McCaul, who chairs the Foreign Affairs Committee, earlier this month, said that Russian propaganda has, quote, "infected a good chunk of my party's base."

Again, some of them very reticent to give Ukraine any aid. Do you agree with that, that Russian propaganda has infected a good chunk of the GOP base?

D'ESPOSITO: I don't know if it's propaganda or if it's the fact that there are members of his party that want to see where that money is going. They want to make sure that there's checks and balances for billions upon billions of dollars that were sending over to Ukraine.

The threat is real. And Russia is a threat, not only to Ukraine, but to the United States of America and democracy. And I think that what we saw just a week ago today, with regards to Iran attacking Israel, we need to make sure that we show the strength of the United States of America.

And this package tomorrow, these bills will do just that, will support our allies, will show that we are standing up for democracy, and we're not going to be in the shadows waiting to watch what happens.

DEAN: But there is oversight money in that aid package. So there is going to be oversight where -- to determine where that money goes. So why do you think there's a hang up for number of your colleagues on aid to Ukraine?

D'ESPOSITO: Well, some of the hang up has been that, before we send more money to Ukraine, that we should be securing our border. And I agree we do need to secure our border. And that's one of the reasons as to why, back in May, House

Republicans sent the Secure the Border Act, H.R.-2, over to the Senate, where it collected dust.

And quite frankly, that should have been the starting point, that should have been the ability for Democrats and Republicans to come together and begin to negotiate on how we secure our border.

[14:45:05]

The Democrats in the Senate didn't do that. What they did was they put together this magical bipartisan --

(CROSSTALK)

DEAN: Well, it was negotiated by --

(CROSSTALK)

DEAN: -- Republican James Lankford, so it wasn't Democrats only. It was also Independent Kyrsten Sinema and -

(CROSSTALK)

D'ESPOSITO: Just because -- just because it was -- just because it was negotiated by a Republican doesn't mean that it was right.

I mean, I have plenty of Republicans that I serve in the House with that I don't agree with everything that they do either.

And I think that parts of that that bill had good -- good stuff in it, but there was some of it that we just could not -- I don't think we looked at it as a solution, but more of a surrender.

Where we should have started was H.R.-2. If the Senate was truly looking to secure our border and make changes along our southern border, then it should've started with H.R.-2, but it didn't.

DEAN: OK. Let's put that to the side. Because right now, immigration is on -- any legislation is on ice because it's just not going anywhere on Capitol Hill.

This is what you guys are voting on tomorrow. And Speaker Johnson, there are now three Republicans who signed onto this effort to oust him over bringing this -- these foreign aid bills to the floor.

But there's just three of them in a conference of 218. So is the Republican Party in the House living under the tyranny of the minority here?

D'ESPOSITO: I think that there are certain members of our conference that are making decisions that, for some of them, are personal. I think that we are showing that tomorrow this is about putting America first. It's about putting democracy first.

I think they need to put their personal concerns aside and do what's right for the American people.

And I've said it this morning and I said it to Speaker Johnson last night and reminded him again this afternoon, the world is watching and these days that we've had, started thing with Iran attacking Israel, and, of course, October 7th, and now leading to us voting on these packages.

The world is watching. This is going to be in history books. And I think that history is going to look very kindly upon those members of this body as well as our speaker who stepped up and did the right thing at the right time.

DEAN: And quickly, before I let you go, you have said that you would be in favor of consequences, repercussions for Mike Johnson's detractors, those specifically on the Rules Committee who, multiple times, have blocked rules supported by the speaker, who are threatening the others, who are maybe threatening to oust him.

What would you like to see in that regard?

D'ESPOSITO: I think there just needs to be repercussions. We cannot have or allow this conference, and especially in a committee like Rules where, historically, they tell us that the Rules Committee does what the -- what the conference asks and especially what the speaker asks.

That's not happening. And our conference is -- are the ones that's losing. So we need to make sure that we -- that there are repercussions for those who detract from the best wishes and the thoughts and the concerns of our conference.

DEAN: All right.

D'ESPOSITO: I think that's fair.

DEAN: Yes. Congressman Anthony D'Esposito, we really do appreciate your time. Thanks so much.

D'ESPOSITO: Thank you.

DEAN: Much more to come on our breaking news today. A full jury seated in the historic criminal hush money trial of Donald Trump. We're going to talk about the political fallout of that, up next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[14:52:39]

SANCHEZ: As former President Donald Trump sits in s New York courtroom during his hush money trial, he's going to be off the campaign trail. So far though, it's unclear what impact that absence and his messaging during breaks from quarter are going to have on his reelection effort.

Let's discuss now with Alayna Treene.

Alayna, what are you hearing from the Trump campaign about his absence from the campaign trail?

ALAYNA TREENE, CNN REPORTER: Well, there's a couple things I want to point out here. One, it's of course, a juggling act, how they're going to continue campaigning from New York and while he's required to be in the courtroom, which is four days of the week.

He can still travel on Wednesdays, Saturdays and Sundays. But it's a great messaging tactic for the former president. And what I want to point out here is that very rarely does Donald Trump hold more than two political events in a week.

And as I just said, with this current schedule and the court's schedule, he is able to campaign for three days out of the seven-day week.

But of course, it's a good message for Donald Trump to be saying, look, I'm being forced to be taken off the campaign. I'm stuck in this courtroom. And that's why you're hearing him say this over and over again, basically, every time he goes to the cameras in and out of the courtroom that he is stuck here.

But as I will say, this week, we do not see him hold a campaign event on Wednesday. He will be going to North Carolina tomorrow. But as of now, from my conversations with the Trump campaign, he's not expected to travel next week at all.

And so a lot of this really comes down to messaging -- Boris?

SANCHEZ: The -- some of the details in this case, just by the nature of it, this alleged affair with adult film star, the hush money that he apparently siphoned through or got through Michael Cohen.

How does the Trump campaign feel about these details coming to light right now in the middle of this campaign?

TREENE: Well, I'll say this. This is actually one of the cases that Donald Trump's attorneys believe is the weakest of the four criminal indictments that he is facing.

However, they also recognize that there are concerns about this being a jury, having the jury be from Manhattan, a place that overwhelmingly voted for Joe Biden in 2020.

But as you mentioned, the other part of this is that it's very personal to Donald Trump. There's going to be a lot of embarrassing salacious details that come out of this trial.

I mean, it's about him paying money to a porn star. So that is something he's going to have to grapple with. And that's where a lot of this concern comes from.

And your point about some of the witnesses who are expected to testify, people like Michael Cohen, Stormy Daniels, the alleged adult film star at the center of all of this.

[14:55:06] They could have some pretty damaging things to say while on the stand. That's also why we heard Donald Trump this morning railing against the gag order.

One of the things that gag order prevents him from talking about or criticizing is attacking witnesses. And that's a lot of where this frustration is coming from on Donald Trump's side specifically.

SANCHEZ: Yes. And the judge's family as well.

TREENE: Right.

SANCHEZ: As you were speaking, we just got an update on social media, something that the former president posted.

He writes, quote, "Judge Merchan is railroading me at breakneck speed in order to completely satisfy his friends. Additionally, he has gagged me so that I cannot talk about the most important of topics, including his totally disqualifying conflict of interest and taking away my constitutional right of free speech."

This is something that Trump posted on Truth Social. Ironic, given that he is actually saying these things out loud. He said these things in front of cameras.

He's not actually prevented in the gag order from speaking about the judge in the case. How does the Trump campaign feel about him testing the waters of these gag orders and saying things that potentially could hamper him in court?

TREENE: I mean, it's a very fine line to walk. And it's something that Donald Trump, as I mentioned, is very frustrated about. When he was speaking about the gag order this morning, you could tell he was clearly very angry while talking about it.

But you're completely right, it is ironic with him saying this. And even when he said at this morning, he's saying I can't speak to the media or speak to reporters while he was speaking to reporters.

There's very -- I mean, for a gag order, this is actually pretty lenient. Of course, there are areas he's not able to talk about. You mentioned prosecutors and their staff. That does not include Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg.

He's not allowed to talk about their families, but he can talk about the judge. You obviously just criticized the judge in that post. And he can't talk about potential witnesses and jurors.

But apart from that, Donald Trump is able to speak about these things. And so, from what I'm hearing from my conversations with Trump's team, they are trying to know -- to not have him continue to rail against anything that could violate the gag order. But he has a lot of room there.

SANCHEZ: It'll be interesting to see how the prosecution now moves forward with sharing a witness list with the defense, something that they didn't want to do, in part, because they fear that Trump might post something like this.

Alayna Treene, thanks so much for the updates.

Stay with CNN NEWS CENTRAL. We're back in just a few minutes.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)