The Lead with Jake Tapper Aired April 11, 2024 - 16:00 ET THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED. [16:00:06] … JAKE TAPPER, CNN HOST: … … Conan O'Brien comes here on THE LEAD. The major new project he's about to launch. Plus, what he made a returning to the set of the tonight show last night, years after all that late night drama. Plus, with the clock ticking, Donald Trump is running out of time to find another path toward an appeal. Can he get out of his first criminal trial or at least delay it before jury selection starts on Monday? … The Lead with Jake Tapper Aired April 11, 2024 - 17:00 ET THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED. [17:00:00] JAKE TAPPER, CNN HOST: Coming up, the options still on the table. And leading this hour, the death of O.J. Simpson today. His life and successes overshadowed, of course, by murders and a trial and that controversial acquittal. Not to mention his hypothetical, probably not hypothetical murder confession written out in a book. Who can forget in 1994 hearing that Simpson was -- Simpson was charged with murdering his ex-wife, Nicole Brown Simpson, and her friend Ron Goldman, then watching Simpson flee police in a white Ford Bronco at a Los Angeles highway. People literally lining up on the road to see this kind of low speed chase. CNN's Tom Foreman certainly remembers. Tom, you covered what would be one of, if not honestly, the most historic high profile murder trial in the United States of America. TOM FOREMAN, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Yes, I covered it along with, I think, every national correspondent in the western hemisphere at the time, Jake. Look, this was really just a ground shaking trial. It was absolutely unbelievable. On the streets of LA, in the courtroom, sometimes you thought to yourself, well, this is really simply a local murder trial. And yet the implications were so broad at the time, I think all of us knew it was changing our society and changing the way news would be covered forever. (BEGIN VIDEOTAPE) UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Police believed that O.J. Simpson is in that car. FOREMAN (voice-over): For 2 hours over 60 miles almost 30 years ago, the low speed pursuit of an American icon became an American sensation. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: People were leaving their homes and their work and wherever they were, and they were racing to these overpasses. FOREMAN (voice-over): And when the white broncos stopped for O.J. Simpson to face murder charges over the killing of his ex-wife Nicole Brown and Ronald Goldman, the country was hooked. UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: That was our first introduction into reality T.V. and what it looked like and we were obsessed. FOREMAN (voice-over): Simpson with was a superstar, a Heisman Trophy winner in college, one of the most dazzling running backs in NFL history for many black families in particular, a runaway success. O.J. SIMPSON, FORMER NFL PLAYER: Nobody does it better than her. FOREMAN (voice-over): Juice was a beloved celebrity in commercials and movies. SIMPSON: Nordberg. How re you, buddy? Hey. Doc says I should be on my bean in this, good as new in a week. FOREMAN (voice-over): And yet his role as defendant eclipsed everything else. Through 11 months of court proceedings and non-stop media coverage, the nation was captivated by daily debates over DNA evidence, police procedure, and dramatic moments made for T.V. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: If it doesn't fit, you must acquit. FOREMAN (voice-over): When the verdict came down -- UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Not guilty of the crime of murder. FOREMAN (voice-over): -- by one estimate, 150 million people watched live, many splitting along racial lines over whether the ruling was just or just wrong. UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: It's just unfair. FOREMAN (voice-over): A massive civil suit by the victims' families did not go as well for Simpson, and he was ordered to pay tens of millions in damages. He lost his house and Heisman, but kept hundreds of thousands in pension funds. FRED GOLDMAN, FATHER OF RON GOLDMAN: Our family is grateful for a verdict of responsibility, which was just all we ever wanted. FOREMAN (voice-over): Simpson had future legal problems, too. In 2007, he was arrested after an armed robbery involving sports memorabilia he said was his. SIMPSON: I am sorry. I didn't mean to steal anything from anybody, and I didn't know I was doing anything illegal. FOREMAN (voice-over): He wound up convicted and sentenced to 33 years in prison. He was paroled in 2017. And through it all, he maintained his innocence in the murders that changed his life and American society, too. SIMPSON: Right now, I'm at a point in my life where all I want to do is spend time with my -- as much time as I can with my children and my friends. I've done my time. (END VIDEOTAPE) FOREMAN (on camera): I'm sure in so many ways the Brown and Goldman families will say they've done their time, too, because they've had to watch all these years of attention on Simpson after that not guilty verdict. And to be sure, because of his pensions and the way these settlements were set up, he did not live in poverty. He was able to make a decent living for the rest of his life, even though many people in America always felt the verdict was unjust and could never get past that point. Jake. TAPPER: All right, Tom Foreman, thanks so much. Let's bring in CNN contributor Bob Costas. Bob, what's your reaction to Simpson's death? When you heard the news today, what did you think? BOB COSTAS, CNN CONTRIBUTOR: Well, you can't imagine someone who has such starkly different first and second chapters in their lives. The first chapter was entirely glorious. And the second, no matter how glorious and no matter how accomplished and no matter how much popularity in the first chapter, the second chapter is going to be near the top of all the obituaries. It'll be in the first paragraph. It'll be something like O.J. Simpson, Heisman Trophy winner, 2,000 yard rusher in the NFL, member of the Pro Football hall of Fame, beloved television personality and commercial pitch man whose life fell apart when he was accused of the murder of his ex-wife and her friend, that's the way that first paragraph is going to be everywhere. [17:05:14] And I can't think of a starker contrast when you look back at the life of any prominent American. TAPPER: So, you knew Simpson for years. I mean, he was that glorious figure for decades. You were friends with him -- COSTAS: Yes. TAPPER: -- at one point. COSTAS: Yes. TAPPER: Tell me what your reaction was when you first heard in 1994 that he was -- that he was a suspect in the death of his wife and her friend. COSTAS: Yes. My first reaction when, I think it was on a Monday, when we heard about it, my first reaction was, oh, my God, what a terrible tragedy for O.J. and his family. Then, as the thing began to play out, you heard he was a suspect. And then by Friday of that week, they were asking for his arrest and he was fleeing, and he had been termed a fugitive from justice at that point. So at that point, you begin to think there's good reason to believe that he was somehow involved. Now, let me say this just as background, O.J. Simpson wasn't just a famous football player. In all of my dealings with him, he was an extremely nice and likable guy, the kind of guy who would remember the name of the intern who brought you coffee when you got to the set on a Sunday morning to cover football, which we did together for four or five years on NBC. I had dinner with him many times. He came to charity events at my request. We played golf. He was a hale fellow, well met. That, contradictory as it may seem, doesn't point toward his innocence when all of the factors and all of the evidence are taken into account. As you've laid out in the last hour, very capably, there was an intersection here of all kinds of dynamics. The history of racial injustice involving African-Americans in this country, the specific issue of the past behavior of the LAPD and the feelings that African-American citizens might have about that. All those things can be true, and they were true, and to some extent, remain true and O.J. Simpson can still be guilty. You know, the DNA evidence which Barry Scheck and the Innocence Project have used to free hundreds of wrongly accused Americans, most of them African Americans, to exonerate them, which is noble work. The truth is that DNA evidence pointed toward O.J. Simpson's guilt, not innocence. But all the overlapping factors and the excellent work done by his dream team of attorneys was able to obscure that essential fact. Were all the social issues that helped to exonerate O.J. true? Yes. But is the evidence in the case itself something that exonerates him? No. TAPPER: It must have been so otherworldly for you to watch somebody who it sounds like was a friend and somebody who -- COSTAS: Yes. TAPPER: -- your relationship was, that he was this wonderful, generous guy. And then you hear -- COSTAS: Yes. TAPPER: -- all this evidence and see pictures of his ex-wife, you know, with bruises on her face from his physical abuse of her -- COSTAS: Yes. TAPPER: -- according to her sister, and then come to the conclusion that, in your view, your friend did this. COSTAS: Yes. I was inclined to give him the benefit of any doubt. And remember, he was not, as Bomani Jones said earlier, he was not a typical African-American person standing charged for a crime. He had his celebrity, he had his enormous popularity. He had the resources to have a great defense team, but he somehow became an avatar in the minds of many for all of these other ongoing, centuries old issues that are very legitimate issues and he actually benefited from some of that. You know, if I could give him the benefit of any doubt, I would. And I'm sorry to have to say this on the day that he passed away, but someone asked me once, do you think O.J, did it? I said, yes. They said, why? And I said, because I live on this planet. TAPPER: Yes. COSTAS: It just -- the evidence just adds up to nothing else. And I hope I'm not going on too long here, Jake, but this might be of interest. I found myself on a plane a few years after the verdicts, I found myself on a plane sitting next to Johnnie Cochran. We had never met, but we recognized each other. He sat at the window and I was on the aisle, and we made small talk, mostly about sports. And then as the plane was descending, I said, I know, Johnnie, you have to deal with this constantly, so I just want to ask you a question, just this one question, did it surprise you that the prosecution didn't, in their closing arguments, make this point, of all the African Americans you can think of, why would the LAPD, whatever issues we may have with them, why would they have been interested in framing O.J. Simpson, of all people? And if they did frame him, they would have to know if he was an innocent man, wouldn't they have to know that he didn't have an airtight alibi as they put all this stuff together on the spot? Wouldn't they have to know that there's no possibility he was in Philadelphia or Chicago and had an airtight alibi? Or if someone else actually did it, that they might not show up with blood all over their clothes in a bus depot in Fresno someplace? How would you know even if you had the most malign intentions, how could you, in that moment, put all that stuff together and not know that it wouldn't fall apart upon the discovery of other facts? [17:10:46] That makes no sense. Johnnie Cochran then said to me, I wondered why they didn't do that myself, but I'm glad they didn't. And then I said, given everything, it might not have made any difference. And Johnnie said, Bob, I didn't create the facts of the case, I just worked with them. And I said, and brilliantly. And then with a handshake, we parted company. TAPPER: Bob Costas, thank you so much. Appreciate it. COSTAS: Thank you, Jake. TAPPER: Coming up, why a foundation refused to honor former Congresswoman Liz Cheney and the protest resignation that came of it. Plus, comedian Conan O'Brien is here to talk about his big new T.V. venture. But first, Donald Trump is running out of options as he faces his first criminal trial next week. Can he do anything to delay the case? (COMMERCIAL BREAK) [17:15:40] TAPPER: Back with our law and justice lead, it is now past 05:00 p.m., Eastern, which means former President Donald Trump and his legal team could not muster their fourth attempt this week to come up with a legal method to delay Monday's historic trial. The New York hush money trial that's part -- sex scandal of part 2016 election, the interference case, and the first ever criminal trial of a former U.S. president. Let's get right to the lead star, legal analyst Elie Honig. Elie, is there anything Trump lawyers can do at this point? It's Thursday, so there's still Friday, Saturday, Sunday before Monday's jury selection. ELIE HONIG, FORMER ASSISTANT U.S. ATTORNEY, SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF N.Y.: Yes, Jake, today was a notable day. No last minute adjournment requests, no emergencies, no appeals, no motions for reconsideration. Maybe they've seen the writing on the wall that this thing is going on Monday. Now, the only things they can theoretically do is, first of all, try to ask New York's highest court, the court of appeals, to take a look at some of these appeals which were already rejected, and maybe in the farthest off scenario, to ask the U.S. Supreme Court to get involved. Any such effort, though, is doomed, both in terms of substance. He's got nothing here in terms of his arguments and in terms of procedure and in terms of timing. We are under 100 hours away from the start of jury selection and I think this thing is going. TAPPER: Trump has not won any of these efforts. But is there any harm to Trump's legal team's credibility in terms of the judge in asking for delays? HONIG: Yes. So there's two ways to look at this. You could look at this strictly from a utilitarian sort of game theory point of view of, well, if you're Trump's team and you lost before, might as well ask again. If you lose, you're just back to where you were before, nothing lost. But I don't take that view. I take the real life view, having been in courtrooms, that when you're a lawyer and you go in front of a judge, your credibility is precious. And if you are bringing motions that you've already lost on that have next to no basis, next to no merit, you will lose your credibility. And believe me, that will come back to haunt you. There will be times throughout this trial when you're going to need the judge to trust you. You're going to need the judge to give you the benefit of the doubt. And I think by making these motions that they've made over this past week, Trump's lawyers have really given away some of that crucial credibility. TAPPER: In a piece you have publishing tomorrow in New York magazine and the Cafe Law blog, you're going to argue that this case is a Rorschach test. Rorschach trial, you call it. Explain. HONIG: So, Jake, there's a couple ways you can look at this trial, both of which are completely accurate. You can look at this as an eight year old paperwork offense on a case that the famously aggressive feds across the street turned down, where we're looking at either a misdemeanor or a low felony where the star witness is a convicted perjurer. Or you can look at this as an attempt to interfere with the 2016 election, to hide information from the American voters. And I think the facts here are largely not going to be in dispute, how are the payments made, who did what, who had -- what conversations with who? I think the central struggle that we're about to see between the lawyers is convincing the juror of which categorization is more accurate and more fair. And I think they're going to be aiming for the jurors brains, of course. But it always comes down to that gut and the heart as well. TAPPER: There's also been a bit of a branding war about this case. We often refer to it as a hush money case, as do many others in the news media. But the district attorney's office, they call it election interference because Trump, in their view, is trying to hide information from voters before they cast ballots in 2016. What do you think is the best way to describe the case? HONIG: Well, neither of those are fully accurate. I usually call it the hush money case as well because it's an easy shorthand. But hush money is not the crime here. It's really important to know. The crime is falsifying business records. On the other hand, it's a reach, I think, to say 2016 election interference. The charge is falsifying business records in order to commit campaign finance violation. It's a leap from campaign finance violations to trying to steal an election. TAPPER: All right, Elie Honig, thanks so much. Conan O'Brien is here at our CNN studios. He's going to join me on set soon. Stay with us. (COMMERCIAL BREAK) [17:23:40] TAPPER: In our national lead, quote, "Please leave our house," a graduation dinner at the home of the University of California Berkeley Law School's dean on Tuesday devolved into an ugly incident. A Palestinian-American Berkeley law student who was invited to the dinner picked up a microphone and stood before the gathering uninvited. Listen to what happened next. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: We have attorneys. We have attorneys. UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: You have to leave my house. UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: OK. You don't have to get aggressive. UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Excuse me. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Please leave our house. You are guests at our house. UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: This is our first amendment right. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: No. This is my house, the first amendment doesn't apply. UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: The national lawyer has -- (END VIDEO CLIP) TAPPER: The student claims that Dean Erwin Chemerinsky's wife, professor Catherine Fisk, assaulted her when Fisk tried to take the microphone away from her after that moment at Fisk's home. The student said the University of California's school system should divest from Israel ultimately, as that's what she was going to say. She says the incidents have sparked huge debate online about free speech and antisemitism and protests and much more. Joining us now, UC Berkeley law School dean Erwin Chemerinsky. Dean Chemerinsky, let me also start with the fact that the speaker in that clip is the co-president of a group called Law Students for Justice in Palestine. And that group put this poster out on social media days before the event at your home. The poster was also placed on bulletin boards in the law school building. It depicts a caricature of you holding a bloody knife and fork. The one we're showing right now doesn't have the blood on it. [17:25:00] Maybe they redid it. With the words in large letters, "No dinner with Zionist chem while Gaza starves." Now, you wrote in a statement after that appeared on social media, "I never thought I would see such blatant antisemitism with an image that invokes the horrible antisemitic trope of blood libel and that attacks me for no apparent reason other than I am Jewish." So, just to be clear, because I want to understand what's happening here, not that anything would justify an antisemitic poster, but just to be clear, are you out there supporting what Netanyahu's doing in Gaza? Are you -- because your wife says that she agrees with the students when it comes to what's going on in Gaza? You think -- you think you're being targeted only because you're Jewish? ERWIN CHEMERINSKY, DEAN, UC BERKELEY LAW SCHOOL: I've said nothing in support of what Netanyahu is doing in Israel. I've actually said nothing in any public forum about what's going on with regard to Gaza. The students weren't attacking me for anything that I had said. And the only thing that they were saying is that the law school should divest. The law school has no investments. The University of California makes all the investments for all the schools. So it's hard for me to see any reason why they were coming after me other than that I was Jewish. TAPPER: Do you think it's difficult? We've covered antisemitism at Berkeley a lot it feels like in the last six months, including in the Berkeley -- on the campus of Berkeley and Berkeley high schools, et cetera, Berkeley City Council meetings, et cetera. Do you find it difficult to be Jewish at Berkeley today? Do you not feel safe? CHEMERINSKY: I feel completely safe. The reality is that the overwhelming number of students in the law school on the campus are going about being students. The law students in justice of Palestine is a very small group in the law school and on campus, and I think it is so important that no one generalizes from their antisemitic speech in actions. TAPPER: What was your reaction when you saw that social media post from this group which has you with a bloody knife and fork and they call you a Zionist? You're a renowned constitutional law professor, and it's interesting because you've said that there's a difference in terms of free speech between that social media image and what happened at your home. Explain how you view that. CHEMERINSKY: I found the image of me with a bloody knife and fork deeply offensive. It does raise the antisemitic trope of blood libel. But I also took the position that they had the right to put it out in bulletin boards around the school. Many students and staff, Jewish and non-Jewish said that it made them feel unsafe. But I said under the First Amendment, they have the right to put those things on bulletin boards. But when something is happening at my house, that's quite different. We invited the graduating students over at the request of the class presidents to celebrate their graduation. When a student took out of her backpack, a microphone and an amplifier and began talking about what's going on in the Middle East, that's not OK in my home. No one was speaking that night. It wasn't in any way an occasion for anything but socializing and celebration. TAPPER: And was your reaction and your wife's reaction rooted in the fact that this group had posted this image of you, at least in part? CHEMERINSKY: I'm sure for both of us, part of the reaction is what preceded it in the last week and what's preceded in the last six months. But I have to tell you that when the student got up and with the microphone amplifier and began talking what went on in the Middle East, my reaction was, this is a party, this is my house, please stop, please leave. TAPPER: All right. Berkeley Law School, Dean Chemerinsky, thank you so much for joining us today. CHEMERINSKY: Thank you. TAPPER: The new travel show launching by iconic comedian Conan O'Brien who will join me in studio, next. (COMMERCIAL BREAK) …