Return to Transcripts main page
One World with Zain Asher
U.S. Secretary Of State Antony Blinken Says He Is Now Open To Legislative Action Against The Icc; Singapore Airlines Flight Forced To Land Due To Extreme Turbulence; Scarlett Johansson Goes Toe-To-Toe With A.I. Aired 12-1p ET
Aired May 21, 2024 - 12:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
[12:00:47]
ZAIN ASHER, CNN INTERNATIONAL HOST: All right, there are those who say it is outrageous. Others say it is a crucial step towards justice -- the
fallout from the ICC's blockbuster arrest warrants application.
BIANNA GOLODRYGA, CNN INTERNATIONAL HOST: "One World" starts right now. Leaders around the world are weighing in on the ICC's announcement that it
will seek arrest warrants for both the leaders of Hamas and Israel. U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken now says that he's open to legislative
action against the ICC.
ASHER: And terror in the skies. A Singapore Airlines flight forced to land because of extreme turbulence. We'll show you images from inside the plane
just moments after the emergency landing.
GOLODRYGA: And later, she said no, not once, but twice. And they did it anyway. Scarlett Johansson goes toe-to-toe with A.I.
ASHER: All right, coming to you live from New York, I'm Zain Asher.
GOLODRYGA: And I'm Bianna Golodryga. You are watching "One World". Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu says that he's not concerned about
traveling in the wake of arrest warrants sought by the International Criminal Court and he doesn't think people are going to take it seriously.
On Monday, the ICC announced that it was seeking warrants for top Israeli and Hamas officials, including the Prime Minister, on charges of war crimes
and crimes against humanity.
ASHER: Yeah, many Western leaders slammed the ICC move, including U.S. President Joe Biden, who called the decision outrageous. Israel's President
said it would embolden terrorists around the world. And the Prime Minister derided it as a moral outrage of historic proportions. In an interview with
ABC, he also went after the court's top prosecutor.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
BENJAMIN NETANYAHU, ISRAELI PRIME MINISTER: I think this is absurd. This is beyond outrageous. He said that we deny water. He's making a totally false
accusation here and everywhere else. We are supplying now nearly half of the water of Gaza. We supplied only seven percent before the war.
So, this is completely opposite of what he's saying. He's saying that we're starving people. You know, we have supplied half a million tons of food and
medicine with 20,000 trucks. This guy is out to demonize Israel. He's doing a good job. He's creating a false symmetry between the democratically
elected leaders of Israel and the terrorist chieftains. That's like saying after 9-11, well, I'm issuing arrest warrants for George Bush, but also for
Bin Laden.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
GOLODRYGA: A short time ago, we heard from U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken, who said that he is now open to legislative action against the
ICC. The United Nations says that it's alarmed by the growing difficulty of transferring and distributing aid safely within Gaza, though, and warns
that there is still a significant shortfall in the volumes needed to avert widespread hunger in the besieged enclave.
ASHER: Yeah, one senior U.N. official put it more bluntly, calling the humanitarian catastrophe in Gaza worse than hell on earth. The continued
closure of the Rafah crossing and the lack of safe access to another main crossing is not just hampering food and medical supplies, but also fuel, as
well.
GOLODRYGA: Let's turn now to CNN's Jeremy Diamond who joins us live in Jerusalem. So, there we heard the Prime Minister say that he's not taking
this news from the ICC seriously, but clearly he's being very defensive in saying that aid is being allowed into the enclave. What is the situation on
the ground there now, and how much aid has been able to get in since Israel went into Rafah?
JEREMY DIAMOND, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Well, you know, what's interesting is that prior to the Israeli military offensive in Rafah, we actually saw a
really significant effort by Israel to allow more aid into Gaza, to open more land crossings for that aid to flow into Gaza. That followed enormous
amounts of pressure from the United States, warnings of famine in northern Gaza, of course, and really a limited flow of aid that was getting into
Gaza for several months before that point. Then the Rafah military offensive took place, and we've seen that that has shuttered the Rafah
border crossing over the last two weeks.
[12:05:00]
That was a critical crossing point, not only for humanitarian aid, but also for humanitarian aid workers to get in and out of Gaza, and critically for
that much-needed fuel that powers Gaza's hospitals, as well as the aid distribution efforts of multiple humanitarian aid agencies to get in.
The Karim Shalom crossing, which is very close to that Rafah crossing in southern Gaza, has also been impacted by the on-going fighting, making
security a major challenge for the U.N. to actually go and pick up that aid once it enters Gaza via that Karim Shalom crossing.
In northern Gaza, we've also seen the impact that fighting has had on these aid operations and not only those new northern Gaza crossings, but also
that floating pier, which U.S. military officials had hoped could allow some 90 aid trucks per day to get into Gaza in the first phase of the
launch of this pier.
Instead, today we've seen just 14 trucks actually transferred to U.N. officials on the Gaza coastline as a result of what they describe as
security and logistics concerns.
So, on the one hand, we've witnessed efforts by the Israelis to allow more aid in, but now what we are seeing is that the military operations that
they are carrying out are having enormous implications for the ability and the distribution of that aid to not only get into Gaza, but then to be
distributed.
And you also have to look at the population of people who need that aid. Before, almost half of Gaza's population was concentrated in Rafah in
southern Gaza, and humanitarian aid agencies had developed enormous infrastructure there to be able to distribute that aid.
But now, nearly a million Palestinians have been displaced over the course of the last two weeks from Gaza, many of those from Rafah, and that is
also, of course, adding a new layer of complication as aid officials try and not only get that desperately needed aid to Gaza, but to get it in the
hands of those who need it the most.
GOLODRYGA: All right, Jeremy Diamond in Jerusalem for us. Thank you so much. Well, turning to Iran now, where the country is saying goodbye to
President Ebrahim Raisi.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
GOLODRYGA: The plane carrying his coffin arrived in the capital of Tehran earlier Tuesday.
ASHER: Yeah, large crowds turned out to pay their respects to Raisi, the country's foreign minister, and seven others who were killed in a
helicopter crash over the weekend. The funeral procession will continue to the holy Shiite city of Qom.
GOLODRYGA: Earlier, tens of thousands gathered in the northwest city of Tabriz, the first stop for the official ceremonies. The country is
observing five days of national mourning. Well, it's a rare occurrence in the skies, turbulence so severe that it actually claimed a life. That's
what happened on this flight from London to Singapore. According to Singapore Airlines, the plane had 211 passengers and 18 crew on board. It
then diverted to Bangkok.
ASHER: Yeah, upon landing in Thailand, crews boarded the plane to carry the worst injured people out. This is video of that. Airport officials say that
a 73-year-old British man who had a previous heart condition had died. All in all, more than 70 people were injured.
That's according to a local hospital. Many of the passengers received medical attention. On scene, in a statement, the company said 18 people
have been hospitalized. At least six of them right now are in critical condition.
Take a look at the cabin after the flight landed. You can actually see just how, my God, look at the damage. Look at the damage. You can only imagine
just how violent the turbulence was just based on the aftermath here. I want to bring in CNN's Marc Stewart following the story from Beijing. Mark,
I am terrified of flying.
I fly a lot, but I'm always nervous. And every time you experience turbulence, you know, you do have to fasten your seatbelt. I'm certainly a
pro at that. But it's not every day that turbulence is so severe that it actually claims somebody's life. Just walk us through what happened here.
This was intense.
MARC STEWART, CNN CORRESPONDENT: No question. I mean, these images, these pictures are so telling of just how strong and severe this turbulence was.
And I've been looking at the pictures, too. You see oxygen masks falling from the ceiling. You see paneling that is dangling. The galley of the
plane is in very bad shape.
We also are learning from airport officials that this was likely taking place as breakfast was being served. You see a lot of food on the ground of
the plane, as well. We are told that a number of passengers had their seatbelts on. However, it's not clear at this point if the seatbelt sign
was turned on. That's going to be a big focus of this investigation. This, again, was Singapore Airlines Flight 321 traveling from London to
Singapore.
[12:10:00]
Based off of what we have been able to see from some of the flight data, the aircraft was at around 29,000 -- 30,000 feet or so when it hit this
turbulence. The captain obviously realized just how severe it was and made this diversion, making a very steep and rapid descent.
When it hit this turbulence, the captain obviously realized just how severe it was and made this diversion, making a very steep and rapid descent to
Bangkok, where emergency crews had just about 10 minutes to get ready. As soon as that plane landed, there was an arsenal of ambulances, of emergency
workers.
Some people were taken to the hospital with the most severe injuries. Others were treated on the ground. We saw some images of someone just lying
on the ground on a stretcher of sorts. We are getting some updated information. I think you mentioned it off the top, but, again, 71 injured.
Six of those injuries are critical.
Finally, let's talk about this airplane, the Boeing 777-300. It is a plane that has flown quite a bit here in Asia, but it's also a plane that you may
take between New York and London or New York and Tokyo. It's a true and tried aircraft with a very good safety record. It's seen as a strong and
sturdy plane, but Zain and Bianna, as we have seen, these forces of nature sometimes, no matter how good the engineering may be, are very difficult to
overcome.
GOLODRYGA: I mean, this is the first story, Zain, brought up in our show call this morning because it's so rare that you hear not only of turbulence
that's severe, but a passenger actually dying.
ASHER: It's also because of my own personal fears.
GOLODRYGA: Well, that too, but it is a huge story.
ASHER: Really came to the fore this morning, reading this story. Marc Stewart, live for us there. Thank you so much.
GOLODRYGA: Thanks, Marc. While the evidence has now been entered, the witnesses are done talking.
ASHER: All that is left is closing arguments in the first ever criminal trial of a former American president. Donald Trump's defense team rested
its case a little more than an hour ago, and the judge has sent the jury home. He says they should come back in about one week, right? So, that's
next Tuesday for closing arguments.
GOLODRYGA: Now, the two sides displayed sharp differences in tactics. The defense called just two witnesses who testified for less than two hours of
time, and they never called Donald Trump to the stand. Donald Trump said that he would perhaps, but of course, he did not testify in his own
defense.
The prosecution called 20 witnesses, and they spent more than 50 hours talking to the jury. Let's go to CNN Senior Crime And Justice Reporter
Katelyn Polantz. So, Katelyn, I alluded to it there before. Donald Trump and his team were dangling that perhaps he would be testifying, but most
legal experts had predicted that he would not, and that's how things resulted. What surprised you the most, given both sides have now rested?
KATELYN POLANTZ, CNN SENIOR CRIME AND JUSTICE REPORTER: There's a lot in this case. There is going to be a lot that's summed up whenever both sides
deliver their summations to the jury next week. The surprising things are that, right, Donald Trump didn't take the stand in his own defense. That's
not something that the jurors will be allowed to read into in any way as they weigh his guilt or innocence when they do engage in deliberations.
The defense case, interestingly, only focused on Michael Cohen. That was the evidence that they presented by calling two witnesses, trying to
further undercut Michael Cohen's credibility, saying he was a liar, saying he was making up stories about Donald Trump, knowing he was going to be
paying off Stormy Daniels through Michael Cohen. That was a theme throughout much of the time in court.
But the prosecution witnesses really built out quite a lot of ideas. It wasn't just a case with Michael Cohen and then technical experts bringing
evidence into the record. There were several people, Hope Hicks, David Pecker from the "National Enquirer", even Stormy Daniels, her lawyer, Keith
Davidson, testifying about Donald Trump, what his own role was and what he was saying personally about the need to protect his 2016 campaign.
So, all of that evidence is likely to be summed up at the end of the day, though. Guys, there's going to be a lot for the jury to look at. They're
going to have to judge Michael Cohen's credibility. They're going to have to decide if the prosecution brought this case. And is there enough
evidence here that Donald Trump acted with criminal intent when he hid those records or labeled them legal expenses to Michael Cohen in the plan
to keep Stormy Daniels silent in 2016?
GOLODRYGA: This, as court resumes a week from today. Katelyn Polantz, thank you.
ASHER: And for more analysis, let's bring in criminal defense attorney and former federal prosecutor Amy Lee Copeland. Amy, so good to have you on the
program. Let's talk about defense witness Robert Costello, because the defense actually brought him in order to try to prove --
[12:15:00]
ASHER: Maybe we could end the interview right now because you told us what you think. The defense brought Costello to prove that Donald Trump knew
absolutely nothing about the hush money payments to Stormy Daniels. But obviously there was a lot of drama with Costello. The judge labeled him as
contemptuous, reprimanded him for his behavior, saying to him at one point, are you staring me down? Don't look at me like that. Stop glaring at me. I
mean, this was a disaster for the defense. Take us through it. You've just you've already told us what you think.
GOLODRYGA: Put it to words.
AMY LEE COPELAND, CRIMINAL DEFENSE AND APPELLATE ATTORNEY: You all, the juice was not worth the squeeze with Costello. Where does -- where does one
begin? You know, he -- last week went in front of, I think, a House Subcommittee and said Cohen's a lying liar who lies basically, right?
Really went into the fact that Cohen was doing it on his own, that he went rogue, that he was paying Stormy Daniels himself. He was doing it to
protect the Trump family. You know, that seems like it's got a lot of curb appeal if you're a defense attorney. But when Mr. Costello got on the
stand, you know, he was very contemptuous. He was, like you said, given the judge the side eye. He was muttering under his breath, geez, and moving to
strike questions from the witness chair, which just isn't what witnesses do.
So, in a case where it's all about respect for the law and whether the defendant has respected and not violated the law, it's a bad look to have
someone in an inner circle that is just so contemptuous of the whole process is kind of how observers described his demeanor.
There was also some tangling with a female prosecutor that suggested a certain dismissiveness of her that can't sit well with the five women on
the jury. And if that's not enough, the prosecution, when it had Mr. Costello on cross-examination, start showing him a series of emails that
include suggestions that he's trying to manipulate Michael Cohen to keep him from turning on the President in 2018.
It says things like, does he understand he's messing with the most powerful man on the planet, and we need to keep him in line. We don't let him need
to know that Mr. Giuliani and the former president or President Trump are behind this. So, this was a really tough witness for the defense.
I read some reporting that they were really mixed on whether to call him at all. The people who advocated no should be feeling pretty smug right now
because I do think it was a real disaster for the defense team.
GOLODRYGA: Yeah, ultimately, though, it came down to apparently the defendant insisting that Robert Costello testify. I'm wondering, just given
that a jury typically feel some sort of bond or connection with a judge. And for all accounts, this judge, Judge Merchan, has appeared very even
keeled and measured and respectful throughout this trial, even though he surely has been tested yesterday and the standoff between Costello and the
judge.
We know that the jury was sent out of the room at one point, but they're not stupid. They sense what was going on. How much does that impact how
they ultimately decide the fact that this incident happened with a witness, between a witness who was so disrespectful to the judge?
COPELAND: We've got two lawyers on this jury, one who does litigation. You know, he spilled the tea as soon as he got into the jury room and said, I'm
sure that this is what's going on, you all. How it plays in, though, is that when you judge a witness's credibility, like I said earlier, it's not
just what a witness says, but it's how a witness acts and how a witness behaves, basically.
What is the witness's demeanor? And so, based on his demeanor and based on his reactions, the jury could just choose to ignore his entire testimony or
think that he's not being truthful with the court. He's not being truthful with them. So, like I said, it just didn't help the defense at all.
ASHER: And just in terms of the actual content of what Costello was saying, I just want to get your thoughts on how effective the prosecution was at
cross-examining Costello and essentially using his own emails against him.
COPELAND: You know, as the saying goes, dance like nobody's watching, email like it's going to be read in court. He was really hurt by what he put in
those emails. You know, if he's claiming that Michael Cohen has gone rogue in this whole situation, and I understand that the allegation is Michael
Cohen went rogue in 2016 and 2017, but to put in emails that you're trying to keep them between the lines without him knowing exactly who's trying to
keep them between those lines isn't a great look.
And often the most effective way to impeach a witness is with their own words. And here, these words sure didn't help them. And the state was
ready. I mean, the state had them ready to go.
GOLODRYGA: What was that, the juice wasn't worth the squeeze?
ASHER: You had a few nuggets in there.
[12:20:00]
COPELAND: The juice wasn't worth the squeeze.
ASHER: You had a few good things. Amy Lee Copeland, we'd love to have you back on.
GOLODRYGA: Thank you.
ASHER: Very entertaining.
GOLODRYGA: And a brilliant legal mind at that. Perfect combination. Well, coming up for us. As fighting rages across Ukraine, our Nick Payton-Walsh
takes us inside the operations of a Ukrainian drone unit on the front lines. Russia's war on Ukraine, when we return.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
GOLODRYGA: The sounds of intense battles underway in and around the town of Bobchansk in northeast Ukraine. Russian forces recently launched a ground
attack there near Ukraine's second largest city of Kharkiv. Ukraine says that it managed to stall Russian advances and it's trying to take the city
back house by house, street by street.
ASHER: In the meantime, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky is pushing Western allies to get more directly involved in the war. I want you to
listen to what he had to say.
VOLODYMYR ZELENSKY, UKRANIAN PRESIDENT (through translator): Russians are using 300 planes on the territory of Ukraine. We need at least 120 -- 130
planes to resist, to fight back in the sky. You can't provide that right now? Okay, so we're going back to air defense. You can't provide that
either? F-16, you cannot provide yet. So, we are returning to the planes that you have on the territory of neighboring NATO countries. Raise them
up. They are there. Use them. Shoot down targets. Protect civilians.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
GOLODRYGA: The fierce fighting in Ukraine's north is resulting in more cross-border attacks from both sides, including a notable increase in the
use of drones by Russia and Ukraine. CNN's Nick Paton-Walsh reports from the front lines.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
NICK PATON WALSH, CNN INTERNATIONAL SECURITY EDITOR (voice-over): Dusk begins a race to hide before dark. It's this drone unit's first night in a
new location. A twilight, a tiny window when perhaps you can unpack, set up, without the Russian drones that are always, always above, seeing you as
clearly.
[12:25:00]
Like so much in this fast-changing war, their task was unimaginable when Moscow invaded. Their target is on the horizon, Russia itself, into which
they fly and plant mines on key roads. They wait for dark.
PATON WALSH: Those lights, twinkling over there on the horizon. That's Belgorod, Russia, how close they're operating towards Russian mainland.
PATON WALSH (voice-over): Putin's latest offensive towards Kharkiv has made the fight personal for Artem. His parents live about a five-minute drive
away, and fighting for his literal home is unsettling.
ARTEM, DRONE OPERATOR, CODE 9.2 DRONE UNIT (through translator): It's anxious, for real. For a year and a half they didn't know that I'm in a
combat brigade fighting near Bakhmut. I was telling them I'm guarding checkpoints.
PATON WALSH (voice-over): And now, for the first of many times, their only defense is to listen for drones. It passes. Now that it's dark, they must
hurry. Russian drones have thermal cameras. They hear another. Battles raging nearby may help them go unnoticed. They resume.
Any strike could also ignite the two mines they're fitting. But they hear another drone. Such an escalation over two years into the war to now see
Ukrainians flying drones of explosive straight into Russia. Inside, Sasha watches it cross the border.
Remarkably, when Russian jamming kicks in, the drone keeps going. And they're able to pick the signal up again, deeper inside Russia. They spot
the target road they will mine, drop both payloads, and head back. A GPS problem means the drone crash-lands, but they have a spare. They once,
elsewhere, managed 24 sorties in one night. But they have to be spotted only once, and these shells may not pass overhead. We leave, quick.
Lights off at first to avoid drones. The road littered with anti-tank defenses, not laid out in time to hinder Russia's latest advance. And now
they have only courage and ingenuity to hold back the dark. Nick Paton Walsh, CNN, outside Kharkiv, Ukraine.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
ASHER: All right, still to come here on "One World", a swift global reaction after the International Criminal Court announced it was seeking
arrest warrants for top Israeli and Hamas leaders. But it wasn't all negative. Ahead, we'll look at some of the countries who are actually
supporting this ICC move and why.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[12:32:51]
GOLODRYGA: All right, welcome back to "One World". I'm Bianna Golodryga.
ASHER: And I'm Zain Asher. It was the controversial decision heard around the world. After the International Criminal Court announced that it was
seeking arrest warrants for not only top Hamas leaders, but also Israel's Prime Minister and Defense Minister.
Global reaction was swift, angry, and at times, incredulous. The U.S. voiced some of the strongest condemnation. Here's what President Joe Biden
said while delivering remarks at a celebration for Jewish American Heritage Month at the White House yesterday.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
JOE BIDEN, U.S. PRESIDENT: Let me be clear. We reject the ICC's application for arrest warrants against Israeli leaders. Whatever these warrants may
imply, there is no equivalence between Israel and Hamas contrary to allegations against Israel made by the International Court of Justice,
what's happening is not genocide. We reject that.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
ASHER: But not all the reaction was negative. In fact, Belgium and South Africa were among countries that actually expressed their support. And
France, breaking ranks with some of its Western allies, actually had this to say. France supports the International Criminal Court. It's independence
and the fight against impunity in all situations.
GOLODRYGA: Time now for The Exchange and our conversation with David Shepherd. He was nominated by U.S. President Bill Clinton to serve as the
first ever ambassador at large for war crimes issues, and he joins us now live from Washington, D.C.
David, welcome back to the program. So, on the one hand, you have people like President Biden condemning this move and Secretary of State Blinken
saying that he's now open to legislative action against the ICC for issuing this ruling. But you've said the ICC had no choice but to pursue this
against Netanyahu. Why?
DAVID J. SCHEFFER, FMR. U.S. AMBASSADOR AT LARGE FOR WAR CRIMES ISSUES: Well, because what they do is they look at the evidence of the situation in
front of them. And obviously, the situation since October 7th is not only the Hamas attack on the Israeli kibbutz areas on October 7th and the
hideous crimes that took place at that time, but it also includes the Israeli Defense Force attack on Gaza in a rightful act of self-defense.
[12:35:00]
One could even call it a just war. But the issue before the prosecutor is how is the war being prosecuted? Is it being prosecuted in accordance with
the law of war? The international humanitarian law? And are such matters as war crimes and crimes against humanity under the Rome Statute being
committed? That is his brief. He's obligated to look at those issues.
So, it's not surprising that, obviously, at some point, there's going to be an inquiry into the Israeli leadership and how they have conducted this
war.
GOLODRYGA: So, what do you make of the reaction, though? What do you make of those who say that this effectively legitimizes Hamas, it's a victory
for Hamas by essentially equating what they're doing with what the Israelis are doing? Obviously, Israel is a democratic state. They're defending
themselves against Hamas because of what happened on October 7th, whereas Hamas is a terrorist organization. What do you make of that response to
this?
SCHEFFER: I think it's very unfortunate to argue that somehow the ICC and the prosecutor has an agenda of equivalence between Hamas and Israel.
Frankly, if that argument were carried to its logical endpoint, then the prosecutor could never question or scrutinize or investigate or seek an
application of an arrest warrant against an Israeli official in this conflict because the moment he does so, whether it's on the same day as
he's seeking arrest warrants against Hamas or a week or a month or two months later, that argument would be raised, i.e., what, are you
identifying Israel as equivalent in its conduct to Hamas?
There are two different types of crimes at issue here, two different types of activity and action by these two groups. The Israeli Defense Forces
clearly have the right of self-defense, but they're being judged with respect to whether or not they're violating international humanitarian law
on how they execute that.
Hamas is under a very different agenda of just literally pursuing war crimes and crimes against humanity against the Israeli people. And frankly,
even if there were no Hamas arrest warrants at all and it was just Israel arrest warrants at issue here, the argument would be, well, are you saying
that there's an equivalence between Prime Minister Netanyahu and President Putin of Russia who's under an arrest warrant?
So, that equivalence argument, essentially, if you carry it out, ties the prosecutor's hands to never submit an application for an arrest warrant
against an Israeli official because he would be charged with the equivalence argument. He would be accused of identifying this as
equivalent.
GOLODRYGA: You just mentioned a comparison that one could make then between Prime Minister Netanyahu and Vladimir Putin. Those who question this
decision and criticize it say that one of the differences, aside from this being a just war, as most do view at least Israel's initial reaction and
action inside of Gaza, that unlike Russia, Israel has a strong independent democratic judicial system and Russia does not.
SCHEFFER: Yes, and that's an extremely important point, which I think Israel should take advantage of. In other words, the prosecutor even noted
in his statement that he looks for what we call complementarity, i.e., the action by the domestic courts to do their job.
Now, Israel has a very strong judiciary. If it can be demonstrated that that court system actually is looking at the performance of the Israeli
leadership, not just the soldiers on the ground for individual acts of possible war crimes on the ground during the conflict, but at the
leadership, and then can communicate to the prosecutor that they have that under control, that they are looking at these issues domestically, then,
frankly, the prosecutor should back off.
And I think between now and when the judges actually rule on this application for arrest warrants, Israel has the chance to essentially
persuade, perhaps indirectly, the judges by demonstrating that they have this under control in their domestic court system. But you can't just say
that. You have to actually demonstrate that you're undertaking this kind of inquiry.
GOLODRYGA: So, quickly, just yes or no, is it your view, do you disagree with the idea of legislation, perhaps even sanctions, against the ICC,
which is now being debated, and Secretary Blinken even said that he's open to discussing?
[12:40:00]
SCHEFFER: Right. I disagree because I think that'll backfire on the United States and, frankly, make it much more difficult on the ground in terms of
negotiations because it will isolate us. We won't be an honest broker anymore on the ground. And, frankly, it would stiffen the spine of the
judges and the prosecutor at the ICC to hold their ground. They're not going to be intimidated by that.
ASHER: Yeah, and to your earlier point, David, I mean, even though Israel does have a strong independent judiciary, a lot of people are skeptical as
to whether or not that judiciary is going to be looking at and sort of examining and holding accountable Israel's leadership in terms of how
they're conducting this war. David Scheffer, we have to leave it there.
ASHER: Go ahead, sorry.
SCHEFFER: Thanks. I'll just make one point there. It's not just judicial in terms of that scrutiny. It's also something we call in the law lustration,
whereby under that kind of scrutiny domestically, it could lead to essentially the lawful removal of the leadership from their power, from
their leadership. And that itself is a penalty for the way in which they have performed in the conduct of this war. That's a political penalty, but
it's still something the court would look at.
GOLODRYGA: One thing is pretty certain now. I don't think the U.S. will be joining the ICC, and I don't know the chances were very high before, but it
appears that they're near zero. I'm sorry.
ASHER: Go ahead.
SCHEFFER: Can I just add very quickly that, frankly, if the United States were party to the ICC, we would have much more influence on the conduct of
the prosecutor's office. We'd have a judge. We'd possibly even be the prosecutor. We'd have more Americans on the prosecutor's staff. We would
have much more influence in the course of the court if we were a state party rather than outside of the building.
GOLODRYGA: All right, David Scheffer. We'll have to have you back soon. Thank you so much.
SCHEFFER: Thank you.
ASHER: All right, still to come here, Trump chooses silence. Witness testimony is done at Donald Trump's hush money trial, but the jury never
heard a peep from the accused. Details on what comes next when we come back.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
ASHER: All right, Donald Trump loves to talk, but in his first ever criminal trial, he opted to remain silent. His defense team rested its case
just hours ago, and Trump, as we all know, never took the stand.
GOLODRYGA: Yeah, in the end, Trump's lawyers will largely be relying on their cross-examinations to make their case.
[12:45:00]
They only call two witnesses, and those witnesses testify for less than two hours of time. The judge in the case says closing arguments will come in
one week. That's a day from next Tuesday, a day from today, a week from today. Then the jury gets the case, and the world waits to see what the
verdict will be.
ASHER: Let's bring in CNN's Alayna Treene in Washington with more. Alayna, obviously Trump choosing not to testify. How much of a risk -- how much of
a potential mistake would it have been for him to take the stand here?
ALAYNA TREENE, CNN REPORTER: Well, his lawyers have obviously convinced him not to do so, and look, this is a playbook we have seen from Donald Trump
many times in the past. There have been repeated cases where Donald Trump has insisted that he was going to testify, that he wanted to testify, and a
big part of that is because Donald Trump truly believes that he is his own best defender, and that's why you see him going to the cameras, at least a
big part of why he goes to the cameras every day in and out of the courtroom and tries to speak about this, and also why he's been so
frustrated about having this gag order placed on him.
But we have seen also in the past that he'll say this, and then his lawyers will ultimately convince him that being on the stand would likely hurt him
more than it could help him, and that's really what played out behind the scenes, I'm told.
Now, I do think it's really interesting, and you laid this out well in this introduction. I think it's remarkable to see that the prosecution called 20
witnesses and the defense only called two, and so that's very interesting, as well. And, of course, there was that question of Donald Trump, if he
would testify. He did not. But there's obviously a huge discrepancy in the people who were being paraded onto the stand.
Now, I do also want to give you both just some insight into my conversations with Donald Trump's team of how the former president has been
viewing this trial. One is I think that he is very much preparing for a potential conviction. I've been told by his team that he recognizes that
there's a possibility that he could be convicted, and also he very much believes that the jury in Manhattan is unfair.
This is something that they have argued since the onset of this trial, even in the weeks leading up to the trial, that they did not believe that they
could get a fair jury in Manhattan, and that's something that Donald Trump still very much personally believes behind the scenes, I'm told.
And so, he is being prepared by his attorneys, but also personally believes that there is a good chance he could be convicted. However, I'm also told
that he's been very happy with his defense team, particularly Todd Blanch, who has been very aggressive in his cross-examination, and particularly of
Michael Cohen. I'm told that Donald Trump was really happy with two instances with Todd Blanch, which was, one, when he undermined, in a way,
Michael Cohen's credibility when he pointed out that the key call in question, where Michael Cohen had said he talked about the payment to
Stormy Daniels with the President at the time, I should say, himself, that was actually a call to Keith Schiller, one of Donald Trump's body men,
about a 14-year-old.
And, of course, we'll see how the jury takes that. Cohen said that he also brought up the payment directly to Donald Trump on that call. But that was
something that Donald Trump was very happy with his lawyers about.
The other thing I'm told that he was very delighted with was how Blanch got Michael Cohen to admit that he had taken money from the Trump Organization.
That's something, as well. And you could see from our reporters in the courtroom that Donald Trump was smiling at that. He was a bit smug about
that. So I think, altogether, it's going to be very interesting to see, obviously, how this plays out next week. But behind the scenes, Donald
Trump is preparing for any scenario.
GOLODRYGA: Alayna Treene, thanks so much. Appreciate it. Well, coming up for us, sometimes art imitates life. But what happens when tech imitates
life? Well, it made one actress very angry. Up next, Scarlett Johansson's beef with Open A.I.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[12:51:22]
ASHER: Scarlett Johansson says Chat GPT's new voice is a little bit, a little bit too close to hers. The actress says that she's shocked and that
she's angered after hearing the chat bot saying the voice sounds like hers. The updated Chat GPT voice has prompted comparisons with a fictional voice
assistant played by Johansson in the 2013 film called "Her". Open A.I. denies that, but you can be the judge.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNKNOWN: Good morning, Theodore.
UNKNOWN: Good morning. You have a meeting in five minutes. You want to try getting out of bed?
UNKNOWN: You're too funny.
UNKNOWN: Okay, good. I'm funny.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
GOLODRYGA: Okay, so what you just heard was the movie version of Scarlett. Now, let's listen to what she believes is the Chat GPT version.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNKNOWN: Hey, how's it going?
UNKNOWN: Hey there. It's going great. How about you? I see you're rocking an Open A.I. hoodie. Nice choice.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
GOLODRYGA: Now, adding to the controversy, last year, Johansson turned down an offer from the company to let them use her voice. CNN business writer
Clare Duffy joins now with the details. Clare, this is really interesting because this has taken us into a realm of technology meeting present day
that many had been warning of, and here we are.
And the fact that Scarlett Johansson issued a lengthy statement about what went down and how Open A.I., the company, reached out to her initially. She
was flattered but denied it. Walk us through the drama that unfolded and ultimately led to this disagreement. Let's just call it that.
CLARE DUFFY, CNN BUSINESS WRITER: Yeah, it is really wild to listen to those two clips back to back, just how similar they sound. Scarlett
Johansson said this all started about nine months ago when Open A.I. CEO Sam Altman reached out to her and asked if she would be the voice of this
updated version of ChatGPT. She said she thought about it but turned it down for personal reasons.
Then just two days before this updated ChatGPT launched just over a week ago, he reached out again to her agent asking her to reconsider her
involvement. She said she didn't have time to think about it, and they went ahead and launched it anyway. She said she was shocked, angered, in
disbelief when she heard this voice that sounded, in her words, eerily similar to hers.
And it wasn't just her. There were many people who were comparing this new ChatGPT voice, which is called Sky, to her voice in that 2013 film "Her",
which of course is a quasi-dystopian film about the relationship between humans and technology.
Now, Open A.I. says this was not actually her voice. Sam Altman said in a statement last night that they used a different voice actress but that out
of respect for Johansson, they have paused the use of this voice, Sky.
But this really does get at some of the bigger concerns in Hollywood among writers and artists about the ways that these new A.I. models could have
been trained on their work, their likenesses, and that ultimately could go on to sort of replicate them and profit from their work, their likenesses,
without the artists ever seeing any compensation.
GOLODRYGA: This could really turn into a case study for future lawsuits.
ASHER: I think it sounds close, but I don't think the voices sound the same.
GOLODRYGA: Yes.
ASHER: Sorry. Sorry, Scarlett.
GOLODRYGA: I can tell the difference, too.
ASHER: Yeah.
GOLODRYGA: Clare Duffy. Thank you. It's creating a lot of buzz, though, that is for sure. Thank you, Clare. And finally --
ELVIS PRESLEY, AMERICAN SINGER AND ACTOR: You're looking for trouble? You came to the right place. You're looking for trouble? Just look right at my
face. I was born standing up and talking back.
[12:55:00]
Daddy was a green-eyed --
(END VIDEO CLIP)
GOLODRYGA: I mean, I could just listen to Elvis for the rest of the show.
ASHER: Bianna was literally shimmying in the studio.
GOLODRYGA: Oh man, well, now, you could own one or more of Elvis' prized possessions if you've got the cash. Some of Elvis' personal possessions are
going up for auction on Saturday, including what you're looking at there now, the army uniform he wore while serving in West Germany. Also, a
wristwatch worn by the king is expected to sell for around $20,000.
ASHER: The biggest item up for auction is the late singer's personal Bible with his full name of Boston Gold on the cover. It's expected to go from
anywhere from $50,000 to $250,000.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
BRIGITTE KRUSE, CO-FOUNDER KRUSE GWS AUCTIONS: This is actually Elvis' personal Bible that was on his nightstand the evening he passed away at his
beloved property, Graceland. And what's really unique about this is it came from his cousin, Patsy Presley, but he also took the time to underline
passages that were significant to him and scriptures that were important to him.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
GOLODRYGA: But wait, there is more. You can also bid on dresses worn by Taylor Swift and Amy Whitehouse. You going to start bidding?
ASHER: No, I think that now that we're back on camera, Bianna, you should just do the shimmy.
GOLODRYGA: You would do the shimmy? Shimmy us off air. That does it for this hour of "One World".
ASHER: I'm Zain Asher.
GOLODRYGA: And I'm Bianna Golodryga. Quite embarrassed. Thank you so much for watching. Amanpour is up next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
END
