Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Live Event/Special

Trump Hush Money Trial Begins Today; More Than Half Of First Group Of 96 Potential Jurors Excused After Saying They Can't Be Impartial Or Have Schedule Conflicts; House GOP Leaders Unveil Pro- Israel, Anti-Iran Bills. Aired 3:30-4p ET

Aired April 15, 2024 - 15:30   ET

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

[15:30:00]

PAULA REID, CNN CHIEF LEGAL AFFAIRS CORRESPONDENT: I think you turn back and be like, well, would you rather they stay there if they couldn't be impartial? Isn't that the counter to your point?

ERIN BURNETT, CNN HOST: Yes.

REID: But this is something that they fought for. They didn't want everyone lumped in. They wanted to know, OK, are these people who are going to be dismissed for cause? How many are because they just can't be fair? This has been something they fought for. And now we see why.

BURNETT: And interesting, Wolf, because more than half said because they couldn't be fair and impartial, and only nine said they had some sort of a conflict. So the vast majority made it clear that it was because of their ability to actually judge the case -- Wolf.

WOLF BLITZER, CNN HOST: Very interesting indeed. Erin, thank you very much.

I want to bring back Jeff Zeleny and Audie Cornish to continue this conversation. Audie, what's your reaction to more than half of these possible jurors being released in this first round of questioning?

AUDIE CORNISH, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Well, I mean, lots of people want to get out of jury duty. I can imagine this one being not that appealing, considering the effect it can have on your life in the long term.

Also interesting because in a way it mirrors the divisions in the country itself, right? So I think it's a good thing because we want this process to move along apace. And now I assume the lawyers can really have a real conversation with who's left.

BLITZER: Yes, they're watching this very closely, and the stakes are clearly enormous, you know. How do you think Trump and his allies are reacting to what's going on right now?

JEFF ZELENY, CNN CHIEF NATIONAL AFFAIRS CORRESPONDENT: Look, they're planning to use this trial coming out for however long it lasts for several different reasons. The first and foremost is fundraising. There's a whole fundraising appeal that is built in every day reacting to what is happening inside the courtroom to try and drum up his supporters, which we've seen him do with pretty good success over the last year.

They're also trying to use this as yet the biggest example yet about how the government is coming after him. And as he has talked about on the campaign trail, I am your retribution. If they aren't coming after me, they'll come after you, which of course is not true because it's very specific to him.

But the point is they're going to try and use this trial and all the proceedings of it as a megaphone for them. But there are unexpected things that will happen on this. So every day he may not want to come out and sort of talk about what happened inside there when Stormy Daniels is on the stand, for example.

So they, of course, will be trying to redirect in shaping the image of everything that happens. But what we don't know is how the public will react to this. Does it add to the Trump exhaustion? Possibly.

Does it add to the Trump anger? Does it add to his support? Perhaps all of those. So we're just going to have to sit and watch this unfold. But they do plan to use these proceedings to every degree that they can.

BLITZER: We do know that over the past year or so, amidst all of these criminal charges being leveled against Trump, it hasn't hurt him. He sort of locked up the Republican presidential nomination pretty quickly.

ZELENY: You can absolutely mark on the calendar when he started rallying his Republican supporters around him.

And it was when Albert Bragg first charged him. And he was going down from Trump Tower to this very courthouse. I was on the street there watching on Fifth Avenue.

And we didn't really know at that moment that he was going to galvanize the whole Republican base. You could sort of feel it in the months after. This is a different moment.

It may be the same. It may not be. The difference is the general election audience requires independent voters.

They are an active participant in the process here. And in a Republican primary campaign, the Republican base is the most important.

BLITZER: Very interesting. Audie, we're told that several of the prospective jurors who are sitting there are staring at Trump, I think in part because he's a celebrity. How does that impact the situation?

CORNISH: Well, we can't know what any of these little interactions means. But we do know from Trump's past behavior in the courtrooms that he's been in so far, he can be a volatile presence.

He's very emotional, throwing up his hands, scowling, whispering, and then later on going outside of the courthouse to complain about even the staff. So you never know what's going on. And I'm not in the courtroom, so I don't want to judge.

But I do think that there is something to the fact that he wants to be there to look all these people in the face. And it sounds like some of them are ready to look back.

BLITZER: And they're looking and staring at him.

CORNISH: I mean, it's a jury of his peers. We are all citizens and Americans. And at the end of the day, they are there in part to be part of that process.

BLITZER: Audie Cornish, thank you. Jeff Zeleny, thanks to you as well.

Just ahead, the escalating conflict in the Middle East as Israel weighs how to respond to Iran.

President Biden is trying diplomacy, fending off attacks from Republicans right now. We'll take a closer look at his options. That's next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[15:39:12]

BLITZER: Republican leaders in the House of Representatives just introduced a slew of bills in support of Israel and targeting Iran after this weekend's attack. They're also criticizing President Biden, accusing him of, quote, refusing to have our allies back, close quote.

I'm joined now by CNN Global Affairs Analyst Mark Esper. He served as the Defense Secretary under former President Trump. He also serves on the board or as a strategic advisor for a handful of aerospace and defense-related companies. Secretary Esper, thanks so much for joining us.

As you know, conservative Republicans have warned Speaker Johnson over including funding for Ukraine in any aid bill that includes funding for Israel. Does that stance by hardliners put aid to both countries potentially at risk?

[15:40:00]

MARK ESPER, CNN GLOBAL AFFAIRS ANALYST: Yes, Wolf, I think it does. I think I saw a statement coming out of the White House this afternoon that said they would not accept a standalone bill coming out of the House just for Israel. And they shouldn't, by the way.

Both Israel and Ukraine face the same -- I'm sorry, both Israel and Ukraine face the same threat. They have a very aggressive neighbor who is attacking this democracy, these respective democracies, and they need U.S. support, and U.S. leadership is on the line. So I think we should support the funding.

It should move quickly. And I hope the House will pass a bill. And they shouldn't go on recess at the end of this week without passing the Ukraine supplemental. BLITZER: We'll see how that unfolds. The president, President Biden, has urged Israel not to retaliate and says the U.S. will not take part in any counterstrikes against Iran. Is Israel in danger, you think, Mr. Secretary, of further straining its relationship with the United States and possibly expanding its global isolation if it were to launch a military strike on Iran now?

ESPER: Well, first of all, I think President Biden is mistaken on both points. You know, look, first of all, urging Israel to act with restraint at this point in time doesn't make any sense, given the neighborhood that they live in. A week and a half ago, Israel said very clearly to Iran, don't strike. If you do strike Israel proper, there will be response.

They have to follow through on that now. By the same token, President Biden told the Iranians don't as well. To me, that looks like a red line. And so for Israel not to act now, that would undermine their credibility.

Plus, I might add, look, for 20 plus years, Israel faced a constant threat from rockets from Hamas in the south and rockets from Hezbollah in the north every year. In some years, well over 1,000 rockets attacked, and this led to Israel going into either to fight.

Now, Iran has changed the paradigm, and they've acknowledged it. They said it publicly. They've created a new normal that they're no longer afraid to strike Israel.

So now does Israel have to deal not just with a southern front and a northern front, but an eastern front? I think they need to hit back hard. And look, the other thing that I think President Biden has made a mistake on is taking the military option off the table. He did this with Ukraine. I think it was a mistake. He did this with Gaza. It was a mistake.

And once again, he's taking U.S. military options off the table before anything's happened. Now, look, I think it made those circumstances we probably weren't and probably shouldn't have done anything. But just to take it off the table, I think, undermines U.S. credibility as well in the region.

BLITZER: This is interesting. A top advisor to the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps tells Iranian state news now that Tehran will not show restraint if red lines are crossed. How could this impact Israel's calculation, do you think?

ESPER: Well, we know that to be the case. We know there's going to be a little bit of a tit-for-tat back and forth until, you know, one side or the other reaches the breaking point. And I will suspect it will be the Iranians before the Israelis.

Iran does not want this war. They can't afford this war economically. And of course, they have a public that is very unhappy with the regime. They can't tolerate too much here.

But on the other hand, Israel cannot allow this to stand, or else they will face a new threat, a new invigorated, emboldened Iran that will feel like it can shoot missiles and rockets and drones and cruise missiles anytime it wants, or anytime it seems to be losing the proxy war to Israel, they'll shoot rockets and missiles at Israel. That's a new normal that Israel cannot tolerate, which is why I think they need to hit back fairly hard and show that they are serious and restore deterrence with Iran.

BLITZER: Former Defense Secretary Mark Esper, thanks so much for joining us. We appreciate it.

ESPER: Thank you, Wolf.

BLITZER: And coming up, Donald Trump making history today as the first former U.S. president to go on trial for criminal charges. We're following all the details. We'll be right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[15:48:31]

BURNETT: And we are back now with CNN special coverage of the historic criminal trial of Donald Trump.

The first criminal prosecution of a former U.S. president, and it all started today right here where we're sitting. More than half of the prospective jurors, there were 96 in the first panel, they were excused. They were asked, could they be fair and partial? Raise your hand if you can't. And more than half of them raised their hand.

Joining me now, John Dean, former Nixon White House counsel, and Tim Naftali, CNN presidential historian and former director of the Nixon Presidential Library.

All right, so, Tim, you know, what do you make of that? You know Paula Reid has been reporting that the Trump team expected that number to be high of people who recused themselves, essentially, because they said they couldn't be fair or impartial. But they thought it'd be about 40 percent. It was over half. Does that surprise you?

JOHN DEAN, FORMER NIXON WHITE HOUSE COUNSEL: No, it doesn't surprise me. It's a very good sign, though. It's yet another bit of evidence that this is going to be a fair trial. Our fellow citizens said, look, they felt they couldn't be impartial one way or the other, and they sought to recuse themselves. That's part of the process.

And remember, one of the key elements of the consequence of this, whatever the verdict is, is how the American people view the trial. Was it fair? Was it unfair?

The power of the verdict, whether an acquittal or guilty, will reside, I think, in how Americans view the trial.

[15:50:00]

The fact that a large percentage of the jury pool said they couldn't be objective, that's part of the process. And that shows this trial is being handled the way all trials ought to be.

BURNETT: I mean, and John, I mean, to that point, you know, Paula has been saying, well, the Trump team is saving this information to use on appeal to say, well, look how biased the jury pool was. But actually, it seems that the flip of it may be true when it comes to who actually gets into the jury, right? If people are being honest about being biased, doesn't that say something significant in and of itself?

You know, it's not --they're not trying to sneak through. They don't view this as some, you know, calling of activism to hold the country back from the abyss and serve on this jury. No, they're raising their hands and saying, I'm biased.

DEAN: That's correct. That's not -- the perception of the jury is important for -- none of us really know what's in that heart or that mind of that juror, but the process is what's important.

And it's very difficult, Erin, to reverse a jury verdict. It's almost impossible. So this is a very thin reed to build your appeal on.

They're going to be building it on anything and everything they can find along the way. So I think that, in fact, the judge has gotten a good response from his question. He's eliminated half the pool.

He's down to the people he can really talk to now. And that was the plan all along, and it's going right according to plan.

BURNETT: And, Tim, you know, as someone who has studied history and, you know, seen this, written books about it, what do you think about the fact that what's happening right now with the final group, right? So first there was the screening out.

People raised their hands. Then another nine people said they had other conflicts. And then you're left with who's left.

And 18 to 20 of them are now going through individual questioning in a room with Trump himself and just the lawyers and the judge. And to think about the fact that they're going through the deeper questions to find out bias and other important things face to face with the former president, it is an incredible historical moment, isn't it, Tim?

TIM NAFTALI, CNN PRESIDENTIAL HISTORIAN: It is, and it's a reminder that presidents, former presidents ought to be treated like any other citizen. I mean, essentially, President Trump, former President Trump, has made the argument that somehow presidents are almost like super citizens and that there are certain elements of our, the rule of law that do not touch presidents.

What's happening in the courtroom today is a reminder that no, indeed, as George Washington established the principle a long time ago, yes, presidents have power while they're in office. But afterwards, just like before, they return to being ordinary American citizens. And Donald Trump today is being treated, as he should be, constitutionally as an ordinary American citizen with ordinary American citizens sitting in judgment. BURNETT: And they are sitting in judgment. And that this selection, now, we understand about 100 jurors sort of per pool, John, until they get to the final group of 12 jurors on six alternates. Given what we're seeing right now, half of 96 gone, then another nine.

So we're looking at about a third left to actually consider for the jury. We know 18 to 20 of them were then randomly selected or going through this questioning. We don't know if any will formally be selected for the actual jury today or not yet.

But from what you do know, how long do you think it takes to actually seat this full jury, John?

DEAN: I would give it a minimum of 10 days, maybe two weeks. It's going pretty quickly. But that's been always what was projected as the likely range.

That's sort of the outer limit. And that would keep them right on schedule. Of course, I would be surprised if Trump and his lawyers don't have some shenanigans to try to protract the process. That would be also a standard operating perspective for them.

But I think as far as we've gone today, it's a good sign.

BURNETT: All right. Well, John and Tim, thank you very much. Great to see both of you again.

NAFTALI: Thank you.

DEAN: Thank you.

BURNETT: And we'll be right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[15:58:40]

BLITZER: We're getting new details on the story we broke last hour. The armorer from the film Rust, Hannah Gutierrez-Reed, has been sentenced to 18 months in prison, the maximum punishment allowed.

She was found guilty of involuntary manslaughter last month for the 2021 on-set shooting of cinematographer Helena Hutchins. Hutchins was killed by a live round of ammunition fired from a prop gun held by actor Alec Baldwin. I want to play for you the moment the judge read Gutierrez-Reed's sentence. Listen.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JUDGE MARY MARLOWE SOMMER, 1ST JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT, NEW MEXICO: Leaving you in the detention center would be giving you a pass you do not deserve. I did not hear you take accountability in your allocution.

You said you were sorry. You were sorry, but not you were sorry for what you did. You were the armorer, the one that stood between a safe weapon and a weapon that could kill someone.

You alone turned a safe weapon into a lethal weapon. But for you, Ms. Hutchins would be alive, a husband would have his partner, and a little boy would have his mother.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BLITZER: We're told Gutierrez-Reed cried at times throughout the hearing, but showed no emotion as the sentence was read.

[16:00:00]

And to our viewers, thanks very much for joining us. I'm Wolf Blitzer in Washington. I'll be back here again 6 p.m. Eastern in "THE SITUATION ROOM." Be sure to join me for that. And "THE LEAD" with Jake Tapper starts right now.