The Lead with Jake Tapper Aired May 23, 2024 - 17:00 ET THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED. (COMMERCIAL BREAK) [17:00:38] JAKE TAPPER, CNN HOST: Welcome to The Lead. I'm Jake Tapper. This hour with Donald Trump in her backyard, New York Governor Kathy Hochul will be here on The Lead. Her take on the 2024 race and on some of the biggest issues plaguing the empire state. Plus, closing arguments in the hush money cover a trial now five days away. How this time off could impact the outcome. I'm going to ask a juror from another prominent case. And leading this hour, a bipartisan border bill rejected on Capitol Hill for the second time this year, this one blocked by Republicans and Democrats in the Senate. Our coverage starts with CNN's Manu Raju on Capitol Hill. And Manu, the bipartisan border bill just failed for a second time in the Senate today. What gives? MANU RAJU, CNN CHIEF CONGRESSIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Yes, that's right. It actually fared worse than it did back in February. In February, this failed along mostly along party lines 49 to 50, you needed 60 votes to advance. Also needed 60 votes to advance today, they failed 43 to 50 losing additional Democratic and Republican support. Those members who are now voting no believe they're doing it out of protest because they believe this is being done for political reasons to try to force a vote that the Democratic leaders and the White House knew would fail. Including the people who are voted against it today, Senator James Lankford and Senator Kyrsten Sinema, two of the co-authorss of this bipartisan deal, but they criticize this process. Now this initially failed back in February, in large part because it was Donald Trump who came out and said that Republicans should reject this bill out of hand, even before this bill was released. And that was the point that Democrats wanted to make by forcing this vote. They tried to lay the blame on what's happening at the border against Donald Trump. Republicans said this is all a political move to try to protect some vulnerable Democrats over this issue of immigration. That's a question I put directly to Senator Jon Tester who is facing a difficult reelection in Montana. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) RAJU: Republicans say this vote today is all about protecting you. What do you say to that? SEN. JON TESTER (D-MT): About politics? RAJU: Yes. TESTER: Do they forget who told them to vote against a perfectly good border security bill that would have secured the border for political reasons? Really? SEN. JOHN CORNYN (R-TX): I don't think President Biden is going to have an epiphany, or reverse the policies that he's pursued in the last three and a half years, which have been an unmitigated disaster. And that's what makes us so cynical. (END VIDEO CLIP) RAJU: But this bill, Jake, Democrats did move much closer to the Republican position on a lot of these key issues, whether it was overhauling asylum laws, or giving the Department of Homeland Security -- Department Homeland Security more authority to push out migrants who have crossing over the border if migrant crossings reach a certain threshold. But nevertheless, given the politics and the nature of things right now on Capitol Hill, this was going nowhere, given the partisan divisions and going down today, making clear that Congress still for decades has been unable to resolve immigration problems not able to do it this year, either, Jake. TAPPER: And today 1000s or 100s rather of students walked out of Harvard's commencement ceremony. They were protesting their fellow students who were barred from participating in their ceremony -- in the ceremony because some of their protest activity had run afoul of rules. The issue of campus protests and anti-semitism and how universities are dealing with all of this was the topic of another hearing on Capitol Hill today that became quite heated. Tell us about that. RAJU: Yes, it did come become quite heated. This is one of the first hearings in the aftermath of all these protests breaking out along -- we've seen across the country. University presidents testifying before a House committee and there were some sharp exchanges on both sides of the aisle. One exchange here, Elise Stefanik, a New York Republican, a member of the Republican leadership going after the northwestern president over this issue. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) REP. ELISE STEFANIK (R-NY): Isn't it true that Jewish Northwest -- a Jewish Northwestern student was assaulted? MICHAEL SCHILL, PRESIDENT, NORTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY: So I want to question the premise of your question. STEFANIK: No, no, no, I'm asking the questions, you're answering. Wasn't it true -- SCHILL: And my answer is -- STEFANIK: No, no, no. SCHILL: -- is not a capitulation. STEFANIK: I'm asking the question you're required to answer. Isn't it true that a Jewish Northwestern student was assaulted? SCHILL: There are allegations that a Jewish student was assaulted. We are investigating those allegations. (END VIDEO CLIP) [17:05:03] RAJU: And there were also Democrats who raised sharp concerns as well. Some of them criticizing Republicans themselves including Pramila Jayapal, who said that Republicans are engaging in, quote, "political bullying" rather than dealing with the core issues at the heart of these campus protests. Also, Ilhan Omar criticized UCLA for just saying they should be ashamed for not doing more to stop violence at the protest earlier as we've seen the violence break out there. So Jake, a very emotional and intense day at his House hearing earlier today. TAPPER: All right, Manu Raju on Capitol Hill, thanks so much. Also in our politics lead on Capitol Hill, and unlikely duo has teamed up for a rare moment of bipartisanship and introduced a bill aimed at increasing transparency in the Oval Office. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) REP. JAMES COMER (R-KY): I'm a Republican. REP. KATIE PORTER (D-CA): I'm a Democrat. COMER: We want Americans to see for themselves now in in the future whether or not our leaders in the White House or influence peddling. (END VIDEO CLIP) TAPPER: The Presidential Ethics Reform Act would require future presidents and vice presidents to disclose foreign payments, expensive gifts, loans, as well as tax returns for two years prior to taking office during their time in office and for two years after they leave office. Joining us now is House Oversight Committee Chairman Congressman James Comer of Kentucky and a member of that committee, Democratic Congresswoman Katie Porter of California. Thanks to both of you for being here. First of all, Chairman, how did this come about this partnership? COMER: Well, Katie has been a great member of the House Oversight Committee for the entire Congress, we've become close. We developed a relationship through an unlikely source. Her mother is a very famous member of the Paducah, Kentucky Quilt Museum Hall of Fame. And that's in my district. So that's kind of how we struck up a good relationship. PORTER: And I was very impressed when I went to visit Mr. Comer's office for the first time that he had framed his FFA, Future Farmers of America jacket. And I was in FFA, and I was able to recite the motto and he was fairly impressed. TAPPER: That's pretty cool. So, Republicans have been investigating Biden families practices, specifically Hunter Biden. When Trump was in office, Democrats investigated Trump's children. So, this bill we should point out, would also require ethics disclosures from family members of presidents and vice presidents, right? PORTER: That's right. It will require disclosure from their close family members. So we're talking about siblings, parents, sister and brother-in-law's. And we think that's important to have that transparency and confidence. We've seen more presidents involve their adult children, involve their family, and we think that's likely to continue in the future. TAPPER: So, is the Speaker of the House on board? Let me just say, it sounds like a great bill. I mean, more disclosure, always, always for everybody. Does the speaker support the bill? Do you think it's going to be brought to the floor for a vote? COMER: I feel confident it'll be brought to the floor for a vote. Well, I plan on having a markup in committee. Katie and I are on the committee. Obviously we have bipartisan support. We're going to continue to build support. But, you know, the conversations with Mike Johnson haven't even begun yet with respect to the bill. But I would be surprised if he wasn't anything but fully supportive. TAPPER: What about the White House? Is President Biden support the bill? PORTER: Well, President Biden has an incredible track record of transparency, for example, disclosing 26 years of tax returns. So I can't think of any good reason why he wouldn't be willing, for example, to do what our bill requires, which is to disclose two years. So the bill starts taking effect upon taking office. So it goes back then two years in time. So given his track record, given that he's campaigning on ethics, I expect him to be enthusiastic about the bill. TAPPER: What about Mr. Drain the Swamp, President Trump, do you think he'll support it? COMER: I would be shocked if he wouldn't. I mean, this is part of draining the swamp. You know, this has been an issue that both parties have complained about. For the last three or four administrations, they're both parties have accused the other of conflicts of interest, have potential ethics violations. The truth of the matter, one thing we've learned through our investigation, there are a lot of loopholes, there are a lot of gray areas. And this legislation is a sincere, credible effort to try to define what exactly constitutes influence peddling and prevent it from happening in the future. TAPPER: Do you think that members of Congress and members of the judiciary, especially Supreme Court justices should be held to the same standard? Is that something that you might also consider? PORTER: Well, there's definitely a number of ethics reforms, whether it's banning congressional stock trading. I support, for example, extending a ban on former members of Congress being able to lobby. We've talked a lot about Supreme Court ethics. So I think if the bill and when the bill moves to the floor, I would expect we would see other members try to move different kinds of ethical requirements. TAPPER: What do you think? COMER: I agree. And Katie and I talks about that. Look, the Oversight Committee has jurisdiction over the executive branch so the bill is written pertaining to the executive branch. Once the bill goes to the floor, then it could be amended to include ethics reform for members of Congress like a ban on stock trading, it could even potentially include things pertaining to ethics reform for the Supreme Court. So, I think this bill is a vehicle for a lot of potential good that both parties have complained about for decades. [17:10:13] TAPPER: So, this is -- we always like to herald bipartisanship on the show, and this is really remarkable. And the fact that you're both on the House Oversight Committee makes this next question a little bit difficult. But there was some moment on your committee last week, just to remind our viewers this is what it was. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) REP. MARJORIE TAYLOR GREEN (R-GA): I think your fake eyelashes are messing up -- REP. ALEXANDRIA OCASIO-CORTEZ (D-NY): Oh, girl, baby girl. Oh, really don't even play. REP. JASMINE CROCKETT (D-TX): If someone on this committee then starts talking about somebody's bleached blonde, bad-built butch body, that would not be engaging in personalities, correct? COMER: Oh, what now? (END VIDEO CLIP) TAPPER: Oh, what now is what is might be my favorite part of that quote. But what was going through your head during that? COMER: I can't believe that this is a congressional hearing. It's very unfortunate. Wasn't the first time. I hope it's the last time that members that have been constant repeat offenders of breaking the quorum. Have both -- have all been called out. And hopefully it won't happen again. But you're not supposed to engage in personalities. And unfortunately, that's what happened in the last committee hearing. Representative Greene's words were struck. I think Representative Crockett said some very inappropriate things as well. It's unfortunate because that was a very important committee hearing that got hijacked by a few unfortunate sale bots. TAPPER: What do you think? PORTER: Well, I think over the course of this Congress, we've seen it kind of get worse and worse, the atmosphere. I think people now are coming in to those committee hearings, kind of hot and ready to do battle. And so I think that was certainly true by kind of right from the start, there was a lot of sparring. And, you know, I think for me, when Chairman Comer said, you know, I can't hear what everyone's saying. That's really the most fundamental breakdown of lawmaking. How can he keep order if people are scorching back and forth at each other? So, look, I mean, I think I know -- the video makes pretty clear who started it. But I don't think pouring fuel onto that kind of -- that kind of personal attack is ultimately helpful. And I think, you know, we saw it and we've heard back from California, and I'm sure you've heard it, too is American people don't want to see us acting like children. They want to see us acting like grownups. TAPPER: Like this. Thank you so much. COMER: Thank you. TAPPER: Coming up next, the closing arguments that will soon have all eyes on a Manhattan courtroom for the hush money cover up case. Hear what it's really like to be a juror on such a high profile case. Plus, the major move just hours ago in Louisiana, putting the state on track to becoming the first in the nation to classify abortion drugs as, quote, "controlled dangerous substances," unquote. Stay with us. (COMMERCIAL BREAK) [17:17:01] TAPPER: In our law and justice lead, in just five days the jury will be back in the courtroom and Donald Trump's hush money cover up trial closing arguments are set for next Tuesday. Jury deliberations could start as soon as Wednesday. Joining us now is Amanda Brainerd. She knows what it's like to serve as a juror on a high profile in New York City case. She served as a juror and Harvey Weinstein's 2020 case. Harvey Weinstein, as you may recall, was found guilty of criminal sexual assault and third degree rape, though that conviction has been overturned. Amanda, when court broke for the week on Tuesday, Judge Merchan instructed the jurors to not discuss the case to avoid any media coverage of the trial. You also were asked to do that as a juror on the Weinstein trial, a trial that most of America was talking about while it was underway. How hard is it to not discuss the case? Not Google it, not watched late night, late night probably more of a factor with Trump than with Weinstein, but to really just shut yourself off from any discussion of it with friends and family, that seems like it would be tough to me? AMANDA BRAINERD, FORMER WEINSTEIN TRIAL JUROR: It's difficult. And I think more difficult than shutting yourself off from social media and watching it on television is friends and family pinging you all the time saying, oh, my God, I can't believe you're on that case. You know, what are you going to do? And what -- yes, and just trying to block that out. I mean, there was a lot of noise about the Weinstein trial, but you know, the Trump trial is deafening. So, it's very -- you know, I think in a way that the jurors for the Trump trial have it even harder than we did in terms of blocking out what's going on in the world. I mean, you basically have to live in a cave to ignore it. And it's a real challenge. TAPPER: Yes. And what -- the way I envision, you know, Memorial Day weekend, people are getting together with friends and family, maybe they're going to, you know, to honor fallen troops, maybe they're also just getting together with friends, family having a barbecue, whatever they're doing, it's a social weekend. And somebody says, hey, did you know that Frank was on the fence on the jury? I can't imagine that not coming up? Well, I mean, we're all just human beings. BRAINERD: I think they're just going to have to put up the hand and say, I just can't talk about it. Or they're going to have to, you know, stay home with all the shades down. TAPPER: What about the media coverage? You say it's easier to avoid the media coverage and the social media -- BRAINERD: So, I think -- you know, I think actually, one of the reasons you get put on these high profile trials is that you don't pay that much attention to the news in social media, and you're able to block that kind of thing out. You know, I hadn't followed Weinstein at all, I wasn't interested. And it was important that the jurors were able to, you know, not get sidelined by all of that. Trump is much more difficult, as I mentioned, because everybody is paying attention. Trump he was our president was not just a Hollywood mogul. TAPPER: Right. And as we've been covering the trial, there have been some real standout moments of testimony. We're sitting around with analysts pulling these moments out of testimony discussing them, murder boarding them. And if obviously that's not anything like what the jury is going through -- [17:20:11] BRAINERD: No. TAPPER: -- you know, we are hammering home moments that we think are significant. That's not how that jurors are experiencing this at all. BRAINERD: No. But I think what's really important to understand is that when you're a juror on a high profile case, the nature of the case or the fact that it is high profile cannot be relevant. You have to focus on what's really important, which is the job that the judge gives you in the first place, which is to listen to the testimony and make your decision based on what's presented to you in court and nothing else. So, any preconceived notions of who this person is, what they've done in their lives, that all has to be completely out of your mind. And you have to just focus on the facts as they're presented, and only as they're presented in court. And it's the same with the prosecution has the burden of proof. I mean, we had to determine that once he was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, and that is a pretty significant burden. So it didn't matter who he was, he could have been anyone, and it should be the same for the jurors on the Trump trial. TAPPER: Big picture, what was it like to be a juror deciding such a high profile case? BRAINERD: It was -- honestly, it was harrowing. It was much more traumatic than I ever imagined it would be. I cried at the dinner table every night. It was really a challenge. And also, because frankly, you know, I -- you have to have some kind of empathy. I mean, you're talking about sending a person to jail, possibly for the rest of their lives. And it's not anything that you can take lightly. TAPPER: And as I mentioned, you know, you're a juror in the Harvey Weinstein, New York trial that found him guilty of criminal sexual assault and third degree rape, a conviction that was just recently overturned, because in for -- not because they thought the jury did anything wrong but because evidence was introduced that a higher court decided should not have been introduced in that trial. What was your reaction when you heard that news? Did you think that was going to be possible? I'm sure that the defense objected to the inclusion of that other testimony. BRAINERD: I was horrified by the decision. Although I knew that he was appealing that he had gone through, I think it's two appeals to get to this point. And I think probably all of us, were horrified. You know, when you go in for jury duty, they give you this inspirational videos about your service to your country, and our justice system and the sanctity of our justice system, how well it works. And then to have us all take that so seriously and then to just flip it over, it's really a travesty. I mean, it's so disappointing. And yes, I just think that -- I hope that that is not what happens in this trial. TAPPER: Amanda Brainerd, thank you so much. Really appreciate it. BRAINERD: Thank you for having me, Jake. TAPPER: Really, really interesting. I don't think I'll ever be picked for a jury and I certainly understand why. BRAINERD: You might be surprised. TAPPER: No, I don't think so. Anyway, Amanda, thanks so much. BRAINERD: Thanks. TAPPER: Good to see you. Live images from the South Bronx right now. Donald Trump is just minutes away from a rally. They're aiming to court Black and Hispanic voters. Remember, this is a lecture of margins. I mean, if you improve your standing with black voters, you know by 5 percent, that could mean victory. New York's Governor Kathy Hochul is going to join us next. We're going to get her take on Trump in her backyard and other big issues in her state. (COMMERCIAL BREAK) [17:28:03] TAPPER: In our politics lead while not considered a critical swing state in November, New York has taken center stage as former President Trump's hush money conspiracy trial plays out in that Manhattan courtroom. The state is also of course grappling with a number of key issues top of mind for voters immigration also crime. I'm joined now by New York Democratic Governor Kathy Hochul. Governor Hochul, thanks so much for joining us. So, Donald Trump, former President Trump he's holding an event shortly in the Bronx in an effort to attract voters of color Latinos and African Americans, historically a loyal voting bloc for Democrats, especially African Americans. But the truth is, this is a sport. This is a, you know, politics of margins. What more do Democrats need to do to solidify and mobilize their base? GOV. KATHY HOCHUL, (D-NY): Well, I'll tell you won't make a difference at all, Jake, and that is for Donald Trump to be the ringleader of an invite all his clowns to a place like the Bronx, New York will never ever support Donald Trump for president. We know him better than anyone. And that means we understand what he's all about is just for himself. So, this state will go solidly behind Joe Biden for president as it has in the past. So he wants to spend his time doing these made up fake rallies and retaining their supporter be my guest, because while you're doing that, Donald Trump, Joe Biden's out there on the other side, making sure he's delivering for all Americans. And so, go ahead, spend all your time if you want in New York, because we'll be with Joe Biden, and Joe Biden's out there winning over the rest of the battleground states. TAPPER: So, let's turn to an issue I'm sure former President Trump will bring up in the Bronx and that's crime and crime in New York specifically. By the numbers we see from the NYPD violent crime is down in New York City in April. Yet obviously there is still violent crime. We see incidents such as a 69-year-old woman randomly punched in the face earlier this month. A day later, actor Steve Buscemi also randomly punched in the face while walking in Manhattan. [17:30:05] What more needs to be done to bring crime down. Again, I know the numbers overall are down with violent crime, but there still is crime. And there was an epidemic of young women getting punched in the face, I think in March in Manhattan. HOCHUL: No, that's deeply concerning. But let me first say this, Donald Trump is trying all his best and said he will do this if he becomes president again, to unwind all the gun laws that protect people. So while in the state of New York, we're getting…