The Lead with Jake Tapper Aired April 15, 2024 - 16:00 ET THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED. [16:00:15] … (COMMERCIAL BREAK) [16:59:25] TAPPER: … …meeting at the Capitol as House Speaker Mike Johnson is weighing his next move in the wake of the weekend attack from Iran. Will Speaker Johnson isolates support for Israel for an aid package without attaching new aid for Ukraine? That's what hard line conservatives want him to do. What will he do? Plus, hours away from what could be one of the biggest moments for professional women's basketball and superstar standout, Caitlin Clark. And leading this hour, Donald Trump's motorcade on the move after a whirlwind of developments as the first day of the New York hush money cover-up case comes to a close. At least 50 jurors interviewed today, which is more than half were already excused. They said they could not be fair and impartial. The Lead with Jake Tapper Aired April 15, 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: … …The judge ruled that the "Access Hollywood" tape cannot be played when their arguments begin. He did allow future testimony from Karen McDougal, a former "Playboy" model, Playboy's 1998 Playmate of the Month, who said she had a 10- month affair with Donald Trump, which he denies. All this in the case where prosecutors claimed Mr. Trump falsified business records to cover up hush money payments to adult film star and actress and director Stormy Daniels to keep it away from voters right before the 2016 election. Let's discuss now with two people who know key players in this case. Stacy Schneider is a Manhattan criminal defense attorney and a former contestant on Trump's TV show "The Apprentice." She has also worked with Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg's office and appeared before Judge Juan Merchan. And Barbara Rez is a former engineer for Trump Construction Projects and author of the book "Tower of Lies: What My 18 Years of Working with Donald Trump Reveals About Him." Barbara, let's start with you. What do you think Donald Trump's mindset is right now as he sits in court for his very first criminal trial as a former president? BARBARA RES, FORMER ENGINEER FOR TRUMP CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS: Yeah, I can. Is someone asking me a question? TAPPER: Yeah, Barbara, can you not hear me? RES: I can hear you, but I can't see anything. TAPPER: Okay, let's go to Stacy. Stacy, you have worked with both Trump and Judge Merchan. Trump has already recently called the judge crooked. How do you expect this will all play out in the coming weeks as those two sit in the same courtroom? STACY SCHNEIDER, CRIMINAL DEFENSE ATTORNEY: So, I think Judge Merchan, and thank you for having me, Jake. I think Judge Merchan has complete control of his courtroom. He is known to have control of his courtroom. And a very interesting thing about him is that on the Wednesdays when this case will not be heard, that's the one day they have a break, Judge Merchan actually runs the mental health felony part of Manhattan Courthouse. So, if there's any judge that's used to an outburst in court who can handle that perfectly, that would be Judge Merchan. So, I think Trump is going to control himself a lot more than he did in his civil trial in the other courthouses where he showed up in Manhattan. TAPPER: What do you see, Stacy, as Donald Trump's best defenses and biggest weaknesses in this specific case? Schneider: Okay, well, the D.A. is really engaging in a novel prosecution here. They've charged him with the felony version of falsifying business records. As a misdemeanor, it's easy to prove. All you have to do is put false information in the records of a New York enterprise. This case goes a step further in that the allegations of the payoffs to Stormy Daniels, with whom Trump is alleged to have had this affair, the adult film star, the D.A.'s office is saying this is an additional crime because those payoffs and the cover-up of the payoffs in his business records were used to influence both the state and federal election. That's election interference. So, this is almost like a dual crime prosecution within one charge. So, Trump's best defense, I think, is saying, I am an international celebrity. I was before I became president. And if another woman had come forward or another person came forward looking for money from me, it's the cost of doing business. I would have paid this person to go away anyway. So, in order for the D.A.'s office to prove intent, and that's the problem with the D.A.'s case, is actually proving Trump's intent. They have to show that Trump intended to interfere with the election. They claim that they have phone calls of conversations between Michael Cohen, Trump's attorney, who allegedly made these payoffs, or who pled guilty, actually, not allegedly, but pled guilty to making the payoffs to Stormy Daniels, and Trump planning this out. So, both sides have weaknesses and both sides have strengths. TAPPER: Do you think, Stacy, it's going to be difficult for Donald Trump to get an impartial jury in Manhattan where voters are overwhelmingly Democratic, capital D, and voted for Joe Biden? Schneider: I wouldn't use the word difficult, but I would use the word painstaking and lengthy. I think after today, this jury selection process has already shown us with half of the panel dismissed. There are 100 jurors who get brought into the courtroom at large and who run through the juror questionnaire panel, and they get picked out, sort of, for certain reasons, like they can't serve, they're not available to serve, they don't want to serve, they're biased. [17:05:00] There are going to be a lot of people in Manhattan, by nature, this is not a pro-Trump city, who are going to be against Trump. But in any case, on any issue that comes up in court, whether it's drug use, there are always going to be people with an opinion. And they will find enough jurors to serve, they need 12 and 6 alternates, they will find enough people to come to court, listen to the evidence, put any biases or feelings they have aside, and give a fair verdict. So, it just takes time. TAPPER: All right, Barbara, I'm told that we have your audio and video back. Sorry about that. So let me ask you, Barbara, Trump is essentially being accused of trying to cover up hush money payments to silence an extramarital girlfriend about an alleged affair. When you worked with Trump, did you ever see any indication that he would be involved in any sort of cover-up or paying somebody to be quiet? RES: Well, you know, to the extent that he used to go out with Marla Maples and always had a beard there, that was just his own personal thing and, you know, his deal with Ivana. Frankly, I think that he's covering -- he covered this up. Um, he would love not to have covered it up. He would have loved to say, hey, I'm going out with this porno star. But intentionally, he knew that that could hurt him. And that was the reason for the payment. And there's no other reason for the payment. He said something about his wife would be upset or -- TAPPER: Yeah. RES: I don't buy it. TAPPER: Pool (ph) reports, Barbara, the reporters in the room say that Trump turned around and smirked at potential jurors as he was introduced as the defendant. Do you think that's part of an attempt to charm them? What do you think that's about? RES: I think it's his way of showing how confident he is and how tough he is. It's his persona and he's carrying it through. He's going to carry the suits through the trial. TAPPER: All right, Barbara Res and Stacy Schneider -- RES: I don't think -- TAPPER: -- thanks to both of you. Joining me now to discuss former Trump attorney Jim Trusty. He left the Trump legal team after the former president was indicted in the classified documents case. Jim, thanks so much for being here. So, you worked for Donald Trump. What do you think he's saying to his lawyers right now after this first day of trial? The rulings seem to go somewhat his way, somewhat the other way. JIM TRUSTY, DONALD TRUMP'S FORMER ATTORNEY: Yeah, look, I think the biggest conversation is about, you know, about the process of jury selection. You know, it is a challenge in today's world where the jurors want, you know, unlike history, a lot of them want to get on a jury like this. They want to have that opportunity to be a celebrity juror at some point, to go on TV and announce all the things that are supposedly secret by way of deliberations. And I think that makes a real challenge for Trump's attorneys to try to ferret out which ones are sleepers, which ones are guiding their answers to the court's questions in a way where they say, well, you know, I know I voted Democratic for the last 52 years, but I think I could be fair. You know, it's a very easy task to kind of shade your qualifying answers in a way where you might get selected, or at least you cut into the number of strikes that President Trump's team has to get rid of jurors without cause. So, I think the challenge is to really keep an eye on whether the judge tries to rehabilitate jurors that might be unfair to President Trump, or whether he's very quick to dismiss them as long as they say something about being biased. And that's, you know, it's not fun watching jury selection, but that's the challenge for the next few days is to figure out what's the mode of interrogation, what's the mode of disqualification that's taking place. TAPPER: He appears to have been on pretty good behavior today, keeping quiet when he needed to keep quiet, answering the judge. In fact, Maggie Haberman says, she was in the courtroom, she says he even appeared to nod off at one point, which maybe many of our viewers can find relatable if you've ever been to court. But do you think his attorneys are worried that he will ultimately get in his own way by acting out in court, as he did, for instance, during the E. Jean Carroll case? TRUSTY: Yeah, I don't think so. I mean, I don't have any inside scoop there in terms of talking to the attorneys. But yeah, look, this is a -- even in New York, even if the judge has some hostility to President Trump, which the gag order would suggest he does, you know, this is a triable case. I mean, any litigator is chomping at the bit at the notion of cross-examining Michael Cohen. So, I think the strategy, if you're President Trump's lawyers, yeah, there's a whole bunch of legal kind of novelty, which I would call frailty to this case. But at the end of the day, you want to make it about Michael Cohen. And if you can make it about a convicted perjurer, about a failed cooperator, and say, folks, would you even buy a car from this guy, much less base your verdict on this man's word, that could be something that at least gets a hung jury, which would be a victory here. So first, let's talk about Michael Cohen. Let's talk about the hung jury strategy. TRUSTY: Sure. TAPPER: We had Lanny Davis here. He used to be Michael Cohen's attorney. [17:10:00] And his basic argument was, and this is an attorney for Michael Cohen, former, that yes, Michael Cohen perjured himself before Congress, but he did so at the direction of Donald Trump. And that's going to be what Michael Cohen says. Yes, I lied, but I did so because Donald Trump told me to because I work with him, but now, now the truth is setting me free. That will be easy, you think, for the defense to poke holes in? TRUSY: Yeah, I think that's kind of the fool me once, fool me twice comment. Like, you know, which time are we supposed to believe Michael? And again, he's got a longer track record of saying things contradicting himself over time when it comes to President Trump. So, look, you know, he wasn't a great lawyer to pick. You can always go back and say, well, you're the one that picked them, President Trump. I get that. But he's going to collapse of his own weight in a lot of ways. I mean, he's lied to Congress. He's a failed cooperator. Southern District of New York, which is not shy to take cases, walked away not only from this case, but from him directly saying we're not going to give him any credit for cooperation. He's too slippery, too dishonest. So again, that's the focus you have to make it on as a trial lawyer for President Trump, is it's all about this guy's credibility. You can't take it to the bank. And, you know, blaming the victim of his dishonesty probably won't sell. TAPPER: Jim Trusty, thanks so much. Appreciate it. We'll have you back to talk more as this case continues. Donald Trump's motorcade is expected to pull up at Trump Tower any moment. Trump is railing about the legal system being rigged against him. Is the legal system actually kinder to him, however, than it might be to the average American? We're going to talk to somebody who believes that. That's next. (COMMERCIAL BREAK) [17:15:39] TAPPER: Here's some video from just moments ago outside Trump Tower where former President Trump just arrived waving and giving a supportive fist to fans. For months up until this morning former President Trump has been lashing out at the judge and prosecutors and potential witnesses in the New York criminal trial. So, the judge put him under a gag order, banning him from making public statements about many of the people connected with the case and also from attacking the judge's family members, as Trump has. Mr. Trump is still allowed to talk about Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg and New York Judge Juan Merchan, which he did over the weekend. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) DONALD TRUMP, FORMER PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: I have a crooked judge, a highly conflicted and corrupt judge who suffers from TDS, Trump Derangement Syndrome. (END VIDEO CLIP) TAPPER: There's no evidence that the judge has any anti-Trump feelings or biases or TDS. James Romoser, the legal editor for "Politico," joins me now. And James, you're out with a new story. You say, quote, "How Donald Trump Gets Special Treatment in the Legal System." That's what it's titled. And you write in it, quote, "Trump is enmeshed in a two-tiered system of justice, he often says, and he's right. There are two tiers. But Trump frequently has been the beneficiary, not the victim," unquote. So, Mr. Trump constantly claims to be a victim of an unjust system. You write it's quite the opposite. Explain. JAMES ROMOSER, LEGAL EDITOR, POLITICO: Well, I think there are many examples of how Donald Trump, in his odyssey through the criminal justice system over the last year, is being treated differently and more favorably than almost any other criminal defendant standing in those same shoes. There are a number of examples of this. And I think the principal example is some of the comments that you just mentioned, Jake, the way that Trump has relentlessly attacked almost everyone involved in all these cases. He's denigrated the prosecutors, the judges, judges' family members, witnesses against him. And he is under some gag orders in these cases. And he certainly toes right up to the line of those gag orders and sometimes violates those gag orders. But even aside from the gags, in all of his criminal cases, Trump is under strict pretrial conditions. He has to abide by certain rules. And those rules preclude him from doing things like attacking potential witnesses against him, but he has done that. Just this weekend, he attacked Michael Cohen, the star witness in the prosecution's case in the New York trial. And what I've had criminal defense attorneys tell me is that if any of their clients were to make those sorts of comments while they're on pretrial release, they'd be thrown in jail pretty quickly. TAPPER: What stood out to you today in terms of the thesis of your article, in terms of the two-tiered system? And I agree with you, by the way, there is a two-tiered system. And its poor people who can't afford good legal representation and who often get, you know, shoehorned into prosecutions and we've covered that a number of times on this show. But today, did you see any examples of this? ROMOSER: You know, I thought it was incredibly ironic that much of the morning session today on the first day of the trial was about Trump's comments over the weekend. And in fact, the prosecutors were asking the judge to hold Trump in contempt for basically violating those rules that I just talked about over the last few days and attacking Michael Cohen. And then just an hour after that whole discussion happened in open court, during the very lunch break in the trial, Trump went on Truth Social and he posted a video of one of his allies attacking Michael Cohen and attacking the judge's wife after the judge issued a gag order explicitly prohibiting Trump from attacking family members, including family members of the judge. And I think what you'll hear from lawyers is that if any other defendant were to relentlessly attack the judge's own family, that would not be stood for. There would be no leeway for that. The pretrial conditions would be revoked. The person would be thrown in jail, fined, banned from social media, like Roger Stone was banned from social media when he was attacking his judge in his case. Instead, what happened today is that Trump set a hearing from a week from now to consider the prosecutor's request to hold him in contempt. [17:20:00] TAPPER: So just the lead of your story is really interesting. A firebrand politician named Donald is about to stand trial. Just a few days before jury selection, he goes on TV to slam the charges as baseless and biased. He attacks the FBI and the Justice Department. But this is not Donald Trump. It's a man named Don Hill, a former Dallas City Council member, facing bribery charges. What's the difference and how those two were treated? ROSOMER: Well, yeah, so it's interesting. I came across that anecdote in my research and I found this analogy of sort of a relatively high- profile politician defendant, at least high-profile in his own community. And when he was on trial, he made a series of comments, you know, claiming that he was the victim of a politically biased prosecution, just as Trump always does. And in fact, this guy's comments are quite tame compared to what we've become used to from Donald Trump. And in that case, one single comment claiming a politically biased prosecution got that politician slapped with a contempt order, slapped with a gag order, and sent us to 30 days in jail. And so, the differential treatment was striking to me. And there may be very good reasons to treat Donald Trump differently in some ways. He's a former president. He's a presidential candidate. He has a First Amendment right to criticize the cases against him, of course. And Americans want to hear him criticizing the cases against him. And so, I'm not necessarily making a value judgment about exactly how Trump should be treated or say that any of these judges should throw him in jail willy-nilly. But I think it's worth pointing out that Trump's claims about the two- tiered system are somewhat ironic because he is treated differently from other defendants in many ways. TAPPER: James Romoser from "Politico," thanks so much. Appreciate it. Really interesting story. How will Israel respond after Iran's unprecedented attack over the weekend? What we're learning about Israel's latest war cabinet meeting, next. (COMMERCIAL BREK) [17:26:26] TAPPER: We are back right now. The world is on edge and awaiting Israel's response after the unprecedented attack on Israel directly by Iran over the weekend. More than 300 attack drones and missiles launched from Iranian land towards Israel. U.S. and Israeli officials say almost all were intercepted, as President Biden is telling Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu that the U.S. will not participate in any Israeli counterattack directly on Iran. CNN's Jeremy Diamond is in Tel Aviv. And Jeremy, the Israeli war cabinet meeting ended hours ago. How should we read the fact that there has been no public announcement yet over any decision to counterattack? JEREMY DIAMOND, CNN WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: Well, Jake, it's very interesting because yesterday when the war cabinet met for nearly five hours, we were quickly told that there had been no decision made. Today, after nearly three hours of meetings, Israeli officials have been quiet about whether or not a decision was made. What I was told, though, by one Israeli official is that the sense coming out of this war cabinet meeting was that a swift response to this Iranian strike was generally the consensus. And that has really been one of the key points of debate within the war cabinet, is not only the scale of this response, how big to go, how measured this response should be, but also the timing of it, how quickly Israel should respond. But one thing is clear, is that they are in agreement that a response is necessary. I spoke with the former head of Israeli military intelligence today who said that Israel needs to re-establish deterrence. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) TAMIR HAYMAN, FORMER HEAD OF ISRAELI DEFENSE INTELLIGENCE: Israel does not want that to be a part of the tool in the toolkit in a future operational friction. We do not want to create some kind of routine. Something need to be done in order to re-establish the deterrence against Iran. (END VIDEO CLIP) DIAMOND: And so, Jake, now the question just comes down to timing. How quickly will the Israeli military carry out the next steps? Today, the Israeli military's chief of staff, General Herzi Halevi, saying only that Israel will indeed respond to Iran, Jake. TAPPER: Jeremy, you also have some new reporting about Hamas significantly decreasing the number of hostages it says that they're willing to release. What's that? DIAMOND: Yeah, that's right, Jake. Hamas has actually slashed by more than half the number of hostages it would be willing to release over the course of six weeks. This is according to an Israeli source close to the negotiations who I just spoke with. They said that while the basis of these negotiations has been 40 hostages released over the course of six weeks, this has been the basis of negotiations for months now. And now Hamas is saying that it will only release fewer than 20 hostages over the course of six weeks. I even got comment from Basem Naim, a Hamas spokesman, who told me that Hamas had proposed, quote, "releasing three captured Israelis each week," but he said that no one is talking about final numbers. I'm also told that Hamas is demanding more Palestinian prisoners be released in exchange for fewer Israeli hostages. They are also asking for more Palestinian prisoners who are serving heavy sentences in Israeli prisons. And the Israeli source who I spoke with said that they believe that Hamas does not want a deal. That is their belief, as they see the talks effectively backsliding with this demand. And of course, beyond this issue of Palestinian prisoners, there is also the issue of the withdrawal of Israeli troops, a total end to the war. Those are some of the other Hamas demands that they are making right now that Israeli officials simply are not going to go for, Jake. TAPPER: All right, Jeremy Diamond in Israel for us. Thanks so much. [17:30:07] Joining…