Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Live Event/Special

NSC Spokesperson, John Kirby, Gives Briefing On Hamas Agreement To Ceasefire Plan; Trump Org. Employee Testifies In Hush Money Trial; Judge Finds Trump In Contempt For Violating Gag Order Again. Aired 2:30-3p ET

Aired May 06, 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]

JOHN KIRBY, NSC COORDINATOR FOR STRATEGIC COMMUNICATIONS: Regardless, as we've said before, we still believe that reaching an agreement is the absolute best outcome, not only for the hostages, but for the Palestinian people. And we're not going to stop working to that outcome.

Now, as you know, the president talked with Prime Minister Netanyahu this morning. The call lasted about 30 minutes and was constructive.

The president reaffirmed his message on Yamaha Shoah (ph) Holocaust Remembrance Day.

The two leaders discussed the shared commitment of Israel and the United States and remembered the six million jews who were systematically targeted and slaughtered in the Holocaust, one of the darkest chapters in human history. And to forcefully act against anti- Semitism and all forms of hate-fueled violence.

Now, of course, the two leaders spoke about our efforts to secure the hostages deal, including through these ongoing talks today.

During the call, at the presidents urging, Prime Minister Netanyahu agreed to ensure that the Karam Shalom crossing is back open for humanitarian assistance for those in need.

And I also want to take a moment to address the latest reports now out of Rafah, which was also a topic discussion on that phone call. I'll reiterate again that we cannot and we will not speak for IDF operations.

But we've made clear our views about operations in Rafah that could potentially put more than a million innocent people at greater risk.

During this call with Prime Minister Netanyahu, the president again made this clear. He also made clear that we continue to believe that the hostage deal is the best way to avoid that sort of an outcome while securing the release of those hostages. And as I said, those conversations continue.

Just one more thing. President Biden hosted His Majesty King Abdullah II of Jordan for lunch at the White House that probably wrapped up here just recently.

They discussed the strong partnership between the United States and Jordan. They also spoke about the situation in Gaza, of course, including efforts to secure the hostage deal and to get more humanitarian assistance into the civilians of Gaza.

And we're going to have a more detailed readout of that conversation here very, very soon. Just don't have it right now. But you'll be seeing it shortly.

(CROSSTALK)

UNIDENTIFIED REPORTER: As far you can tell, which proposal did Hamas accept?

KIRBY: I'm not going to get into that, Steve.

UNIDENTIFIED REPORTER: And is the issue over how long a ceasefire would last?

KIRBY: Again, you're asking me for the parameters around the response and the deal itself. And I'm just not going to do that.

UNIDENTIFIED REPORTER: Lastly, Israel has called on people in Rafah to evacuate. Is -- does that presage a full-scale assault. What are we seeing?

KIRBY: As I said in my opening statement, I'm not going to speak for IDF operations or their military intentions and plans. They should be the ones to answer those kinds of questions.

What I can only reiterate is that we've been consistent, and the president was consistent again this morning, that we don't support ground operations in Rafah.

That would put the majority or even many -- the civilians there at any greater risk. We want to see their safety and security allowed for and factored in.

UNIDENTIFIED REPORTER: Noting here a caveat at the top. Are you able to say whether Hamas was agreeing to something that had been discussed over the last several days?

KIRBY: Again, without getting into the details of it -- and Director Burns is still talking to partners about this -- there have been ongoing negotiations and talks here for weeks.

And the director traveled recently to see if we can't bring this thing home. And again, without speaking about the details of the response by Hamas, I think it's safe to conclude that that response came as a result or at the end of these continued discussions that Director Burns was part of.

UNIDENTIFIED REPORTER: Why do you think you'll have a better sense of what is happening when we get a read out from Director Burns later today or early tomorrow? KIRBY: I don't know. The president has been briefed on -- on the response. He's aware of where the situation where the process is.

What you're asking me is like, when are we going to get like a final you know

(CROSSTALK)

KIRBY: Yes, the final we have table slap here.

There is a there is -- there's a process that has -- that has been worked in the past and will be worked this time. You get a response by Hamas. We're going to have to evaluate that. We're going to see what's in it.

Certainly, the Israelis get it, must have a chance to look at this and to evaluate it. And Director Burns, is, as we speak, literally as you and I are talking, are having these conversations with partners in the region.

You know, it would be great. I'm sure we'd all like to have an answer as soon as possible, but I just want to get her that process.

UNIDENTIFIED REPORTER: Based on the read out, when do you expect Karem Shalom to reopened or has it already reopened?

KIRBY: It should be opened very, very soon. Prime Minister Netanyahu committed to opening it on the call this morning. So at 2:30. Is it open? I don't know. But he assured the president that it would be reopened. It had been closed for several days.

UNIDENTIFIED REPORTER: And one more ask. Cyndi McCain, executive director of the World Food Program, said over the weekend that northern Gaza is in a, quote, full-fledged famine. Is that the assessment of the U.S. government?

KIRBY: The U.N. has not declared a famine in Gaza, writ large, but I don't want to understate the degree of need here and the -- the dire situation that so many people in Gaza are in, particularly with respect to food and water.

[14:35:10]

So it is not a great situation, clearly. And that's why, again, we're working so hard to get this deal in place, so we can keep that humanitarian assistance up at a higher level.

UNIDENTIFIED REPORTER: I understand you won't get into the specifics here, but is it your understanding that this is Hamas' final offer? Is there still room to negotiate here?

KIRBY: I think it's going to depend on our evaluation and the Israeli's evaluation of the response and where we go from here.

UNIDENTIFIED REPORTER: And (INAUDIBLE) are already warning people to evacuate Gaza. If they do go through with this operation, is the U.S. willing to consider putting limits or conditions on Israel?

KIRBY: I won't get ahead of where we are right now, Mary, in the process here. And I'm certainly not going to speak to hypothetical operations that haven't happened yet. I think we just have to see what transpires.

The president was very direct and consistently so this morning that we don't want to see major ground operations in Rafah that put these people at greater risk.

UNIDENTIFIED REPORTER: But a month ago, the administration did make clear that the U.S. would change its approach, right, if Israel didn't take significant steps to address the humanitarian crisis.

Now does that still hold? Is it possible the U.S. could change course --

KIRBY: Of course.

UNIDENTIFIED REPORTER: -- if the humanitarian project isn't carried on?

KIRBY: Of course. We always -- we always have the right to adjust our policies as appropriate, and that has not changed, no.

UNIDENTIFIED REPORTER: Evidently, an operation in Rafah would jeopardize steps to address the humanitarian --

KIRBY: All I can say is we've been very direct and very consistent in our views of concerns about operations in Rafah.

M.J. LEE, CNN SENIOR WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: Does the U.S. currently have any sense of whether Israel is inclined or not inclined to accept this deal?

KIRBY: I won't speak for the Israelis.

LEE: But the president and the prime minister spoke earlier today. Was this specific framework discussed and did the president encouraged or put pressure on the prime minister to accept this framework?

KIRBY: You're talking about the -- what Hamas says they responded to. So just -- and just so you have the TikTok here, when they were talking this morning, we did not have news that Hamas had responded. So that news broke after their call.

That said, as I mentioned in my opening statement, of course, they talked about the hostages and the importance of getting it secured.

LEE: So you were saying, when the two leaders spoke, Hamas had not yet --

(CROSSTALK)

KIRBY: Yes.

LEE: -- would not have specifically after Prime Minister Netanyahu --

KIRBY: It would be wrong for you to conclude that -- that the call this morning was about having the Israelis accept the Hamas response. The Hamas response hadn't happened yet.

LEE: Did he broadly encourage the prime minister to get, yes, yes, to some sort of deal?

KIRBY: He -- as he has consistently with Prime Minister Netanyahu urged that we get this deal secured. But it wasn't -- it wasn't a pressure call. It wasn't about twisting his arm towards a certain set of parameters.

Director Burns is in the region having these conversations with the Israelis, the Qataris, the Egyptians, as, again, as we speak, and that's the forum for working out the parameters of it.

But the president clearly talked to the prime minister about the importance of getting a deal done.

Yes?

LEE: John, what is the president's position on a limited operation is Rafah?

KIRBY: I think I -- I don't think I can answer any differently than I did with Mary. We've been very clear that we don't support a major ground operation in Rafah, operations in general that put at greater risk the more than a million people that are sheltering there.

The question right now is a hypothetical. I mean, we're aware they drop leaflets. We're aware that there -- that they're warning people to evacuate.

I let them speak to their operations and to their intense -- intentions. Nothing has changed about where we are with respect to operations in Rafah that could put those people at greater risk.

LEE: Right. And you know that they are asking people in the area to evacuate and the possibility of a limited Rafah operations is on the table.

So I'm asking, does the president believe that Israel could execute a limited operation into Rafah while adequately protecting the lives of civilians there?

KIRBY: The president doesn't want to see operations in Rafah that put at greater risk the more than a million people that are seeking refugee there.

LEE: So he would support a limited operation in Rafah?

KIRBY: I think I've answered the question.

(CROSSTALK)

UNIDENTIFIED REPORTER: Francesca?

UNIDENTIFIED REPORTER: Picking up on the timeline, so prior to the Hamas saying that they accepted this proposal, what, as you understood that to be, were the sticking points for either Hamas or the Israelis in the deal that had been on the table?

KIRBY: I'm not going to get into that.

UNIDENTIFIED REPORTER: OK. Did it involve Rafah in anyway?

KIRBY: I'm not going to talk about the parameters of the proposal that was worked before this Hamas response. And I'm certainly not going to talk about the response right now.

I mean, I do understand the curiosity. And you guys are all asking exactly the right questions, all very fair. But I really do hope you understand that the last thing I would ever want to do from this podium is to say something that could put this very sensitive process at greater risk.

[14:40:00]

We are at a critical stage right now. We got a response from Hamas. Now, Director Burns is working through that, trying to assess it, working with the Israelis.

I mean, my goodness, folks, I don't know that it gets any more sensitive than right now. And the worst thing that we can do is start speculating about what's in it.

UNIDENTIFIED REPORTER: On Rafah, what was your understanding why the Israelis were only evacuating part of Rafah at this time?

KIRBY: You'd have to talk to the Israelis.

(CROSSTALK)

KIRBY:

UNIDENTIFIED REPORTER: Thanks, Karine.

Thanks, Admiral.

You've previously said several times that the ball is in the court of Hamas. Previous stages of negotiations. Would it be fair to say now that the ball is in Israel's court?

KIRBY: It's going to depend on what the response actually says and the conversations that we have with the Israelis about what -- where we go from here.

UNIDENTIFIED REPORTER: Just one other thing I want to ask. Do you have any sense that the Israelis are currently using these threats or the start of operations in Rafah as a means of putting pressure on Hamas in this stage --

(CROSSTALK)

KIRBY: You'll have to talk to the Israelis about their intentions.

WOLF BLITZER, CNN HOST: All right, we're going to continue to monitor John Kirby's briefing over at the White House right now.

He made several important points, though. Very quickly, he said the U.S. is reviewing the response and discussing with the various partners in the region the Hamas response. He wouldn't go into more details than that.

He did say that President Biden had what he called a constructive 30- minute phone conversation earlier in the day with the Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. That was before -- he said that was before the Hamas response, saying they've accepted a ceasefire deal.

He also made it clear that the U.S. continues to oppose any, any Israeli ground operation, military ground operation in Rafah, given the fact there are hundreds of thousands of people there who could be endangered by that. The president opposes a ground operation in Rafah, he said.

And finally, he said that Israel has reopened what's called the Karam Shalom opening, allowing food and humanitarian supplies to come back into Gaza, which he says is very, very significant.

And he added these words at the very end. He said, "We are at a critical stage right now. We are at a critical stage right now."

And he didn't want to say anything that potentially could undermine the possibility of a ceasefire deal that would allow Israeli hostages to go home, would allow Palestinian prisoners to be freed by Israel, and would allow greater humanitarian opportunities for the people in Gaza right now.

So he didn't want to get into a whole lot of details.

But that was John Kirby, the spokesperson for the National Security Council. We'll continue to monitor this briefing, share it with you.

We're going to be much more on all of the breaking news, much more on the special coverage of the Trump hush money trial in New York right after a quick break.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[14:47:36]

BRIANNA KEILAR, CNN HOST: Back now to CNN's special coverage of former President Trump's criminal hush money trial in New York.

Testimony resumed just a short time ago, Deborah Tarasoff, the accounts payable supervisor in the Trump Organizations Accounting Department, is now on the stand.

And joining us now is former Trump White House communications director, Mike Dubke. He is a founding partner of the Blackrock Group.

And, Mike, I just want to let our viewers know that Tarasoff right now going through the process of how Trump would sign checks. She obviously knows the nitty-gritty of that.

But today marks the beginning of this fourth week of Trump's hush money trials. So far, I wonder if you think the trial's helping or hurting him politically.

MIKE DUBKE, FORMER TRUMP WHITE HOUSE COMMUNICATIONS DIRECTOR: Well, I think it's helping him politically in the sense that the world, at least the political world in the United States, is focused on Donald Trump every day.

They don't need -- the campaign does not need to manufacturer rallies or events in order to get him on television in front of the press.

On the one hand, that's great. On the other hand, it's also a negative in that it is a -- it's turning the candidate into a one-issue pony.

Rather than being able to talk about immigration or taxes or unemployment or inflation or attack the Biden administration for any number of things, we are focused on this trial.

And so probably, at the end of the day, it may be a wash. But he definitely is getting the majority of attention.

KEILAR: So court opened today with the judge, Juan Merchan, finding Trump in content I'm for the 10th time for violations of the gag order that's in place. Merchan said that while incarceration is truly the last resort, he said, going forward, this court will have to consider a jail sanction.

How do you think Trump supporters would react if there was jail time for him? And do you think that he would be, Trump, at all deterred by this threat?

DUBKE: I doubt that the president, President Trump would be deterred by the threat. I mean, He -- the reason he is -- I don't think this is a cat-and-mouse game with the judge.

For President Trump. I think he feels aggrieved. And I believe him when he says that he feels like he has to stand his ground and fight back.

That said, I don't think Trump's supporters would take it in any positive fashion to have the president incarcerated for any period of time.

[14:50:00]

And I also find it very -- that would be a very difficult decision for the judge. And even if we weren't talking about Donald Trump, but we were just talking about any ex-president in a high-profile trial, to incarcerate somebody for things that they say on Trump's social Twitter, whatever it may be, that seems like a pretty far step. So I'd be very surprised if the judge did that.

KEILAR: I wonder, I remember speaking to someone in particular close to Trump, who had said during the impeachment process that they had been glad not to take a role in the first Trump term and that they actually thought there might be legal proceedings.

And they sort of foresaw that that could be a considerable, you know, I guess, investment of time and expense.

And I wonder if you think this parade of former Trump employees going to the witness stand -- you know, we saw Hope Hicks, obviously, late last week.

Do you think that deters folks from working for the former president in a hypothetical second term?

DUBKE: I think anytime somebody considers government service, unfortunately, in this day and age, they have to consider going through the -- all of the ethics scrutiny that is part and parcel, the forms that one needs to fill out, all of this.

It is -- it is a mind-numbing exercise to decide that you want to serve your country. And that's just on a good day.

To your point of serving with President Trump, yes, you have to take that into consideration whether or not you're going to have to have an outside counsel at some point in your -- during your service or post service timeframe?

So it is a deterrent. But there are so many other deterrents that are also for the good -- for the good people that step up, both in the Republican and the Democratic administrations. There is a lot that goes into making a decision to serve.

KEILAR: Yes, there certainly is, even as you said, on the best of days.

DUBKE: Yes.

KEILAR: Mike, great to have you. Mike Dubke, thank you.

DUBKE: All right. Thank you.

KEILAR: And we're back now with Phil Mattingly to talk a little bit about what we're watching here.

Deborah Tarasoff, who's in accounts payable.

PHIL MATTINGLY, CNN ANCHOR & CHIEF DOMESTIC CORRESPONDENT: Yes.

KEILAR: And that's really the point that we're at. We're talking about checks being cut. It -- throughout like just the daily to-do of the Trump Organization.

But what is it that she can testify to that her boss McConney, earlier today could not testify to.

MATTINGLY: So before -- and I can tell by your tone, you may have been in this place. Before you think the accounts payable person is not necessary the person that I want to be paying attention to if I'm trying to follow what I was say --

KEILAR: That's what I was saying, Phil.

(CROSSTALK)

MATTINGLY: -- putting down there, Brianna.

Heres' why it matters. And this tracks and gets closer to what we heard earlier in the testimony this morning from another Trump Organization employee, former.

Deborah Tarasoff is a current employee. And what she was doing was quite literally receiving -- receiving approved invoice, entering it into the Trump Organization system, then cutting the check and having it signed.

And describing this process is important because, what was the huge gap that we heard this morning? There was no explicit link to former President Trump. There was no interaction that happened. There was no documentation that happened where anybody could prove that Donald Trump knew exactly what was going on.

It was very clear, I think, in the testimony this morning, what was going on as they laid out kind of the foundational elements, the kind of brick by brick of how the check was written, why it was written to Michael Cohen. And very clearly that it was not an illegal retainer.

What Tarasoff's is making clear is Donald Trump had his hands and everything. Testifying just a short while ago. After 2015, any invoice over $10,000 had to be approved by Donald Trump.

When she approved and cut the check or got the approved invoice and cut the check, she would hand it to Rhona Graph, obviously, the longtime very close assistant to Donald Trump, who would take it into Trump's office and Trump would sign it.

All of the checks that were coming out from his account --

(CROSSTALK)

KEILAR: There's a stamp.

(CROSSTALK)

KEILAR: So he is signing them by hand.

MATTINGLY: If you want to know how she knew that he was signing them by hand, because they were done in a black Sharpie, which anybody who covered the White House or who's dealt with Donald Trump, or who's gotten a know from Donald Trump on an article they've written or anything of the kind of the course of the last several years, knows he uses a black Sharpie.

In fact, even Trump's lawyers laughed at the idea, or at the testimony that he uses a black Sharpie. You see it right there. Everybody is pretty familiar with the signature at this point in time.

But making very clear that he was deeply involved, making very clear that he was signing these checks, that he had to approve anything over $10,000.

And also making very clear that he didn't just sign off on everything like a rubber stamp or a figurative rubber stamp. There were times where he would get checks, you would get invoices and he would write "void" on the checks and send them back.

Even if Weisselberg approved them. Which is obviously very well documented how very closely he kind of monitored and cared about his finances, what he was spending, what the invoices actually said.

She's now making that point once again on these specific issues.

[14:55:01]

KEILAR: So is that "the" link? Because one of the issues that we've seen is, where is the link between the arrangement and Donald Trump? And is it only going to be Michael Cohen providing that link? Is this a link or no?

MATTINGLY: Is there an explicit link? I don't think there's any question that the answer is no when it comes to that. She doesn't have -- she's never seen Donald Trump on these specific documents that were problematic, the actual basis of the allegations have been brought up -- the case that has been brought here.

She did not see him sign the check. She did not have any access to the communications. She said she saw the former president quite often but didn't have direct business dealings with him.

Again, what you're seeing, and I think Elliot and Elie did a really good job laying this out earlier. They are building the case around Donald Trump to this point.

Whether or not the jury thinks that's enough, you can make a case off what they're laying right now.

If 12 people agree that it -- they think it's very clear that Donald Trump must have because of he how we operated inside the Trump Organization. This is the way he couldn't have known what was actually happening here.

But the reality remains the same as it has been for weeks. We are driving to a point where it seems like the only person with direct knowledge, first-hand knowledge of Donald Trump's explicit knowledge of what happened and explicit direction is Michael Cohen.

KEILAR: What is the consensus right now of how the prosecution is telling a story that is really checking off all the boxes, and there are several, of what they have to convince the jury of in order to find Donald Trump guilty?

MATTINGLY: I think it's mixed in the sense of, the -- I would say mixed because the defense team has certainly had good days. And I don't think there's been any question about that.

There have been several cross-examinations where I think the defense got what they needed in terms of raising doubt about Donald Trump's direct involvement, raising doubt about whether or not he knew or whether or not he signed off on or, hey, even if you signed off on all this, it might not be illegal in the first place, given how the charges are actually structured here.

What I think is most interesting coming into this week, having covered every week of this up to this point, is how you're -- you certainly get a sense of how they're telling the story.

So much of last week, obviously, almost all of last week was about why the election mattered, why 2016, why the campaign, why November mattered. And why what happened in the weeks leading up to the election were so critical.

Before that, you had kind of the friends of Donald Trump over -- over a course of decades and how they drove the structure of this kind of seedy underbelly of how hush money payments work.

Now, you're getting very in the weeds of how the Trump Organization actually operated.

They're building the very specific blocks here to drive towards Michael Cohen and make very clear that, despite everybody agreeing that Michael Cohen, probably not the most reliable witness and certainly not the most liked witness --

KEILAR: That's right.

(CROSSTALK)

So much we've heard that over and over. He's credible or he's -- he's got maybe a credibility problem, not well-liked. But we'll have to see if this jury finds him credible, at least in this matter.

Phil, thank you so much for taking us through all of that.

And when we come back, more of our special coverage of this trial. And of other breaking news today, which is that Hamas has agreed to a ceasefire proposal. We're still waiting to see if Israel is going to sign on to this.

We're also waiting to see, quite frankly, what Hamas has agreed to. If this resembles what Israel had had a hand in crafting last week or if Israel is going to push forward with an offensive and Rafah. We have that ahead.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)