Return to Transcripts main page
Anderson Cooper 360 Degrees
White House Press Secretary Calls Outrage Over Garcia Deportation "Despicable," "Sensationalism;" Interview With Rep. Adriano Espaillat (D-NY); Interview With Rep. Jake Auchincloss (D-MA); Former President Biden Criticizes Trump Administration In First Public Remarks Since Leaving The White House; White House: Trump Is "Actively" Considering At Least 15 Trade Deals; Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez Raises Whopping $9.6 Million In Q1 Campaign Funds As Buzz Builds Over Her Future; Zuckerberg Defends Meta In Court Against Threat Of Instagram, WhatsApp Forced Sale; New Details In Death Of Legendary Actor Gene Hackman. Aired 8-9p ET
Aired April 15, 2025 - 20:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
HARRY ENTEN CNN, CHIEF DATA ANALYST: If you look at the exit polls, compare 2004, which was right near the start of the Iraq war, to where we are right now, the 2024 election, veteran support for Donald Trump was about twice as large his margin among veterans than it was for George W. Bush. I looked at every exit poll, I could find this century and what you see is that Donald Trump received more veteran support than any Republican for President.
KATE BOLDUAN, CNN HOST: That is fascinating, something I did not know. It's good to see you.
ENTEN: There you go, nice to see you.
BOLDUAN: Thank you so much. Thank you so much for joining us this evening. AC360 starts now.
[20:00:35]
JOHN BERMAN, CNN HOST: Tonight on 360, a judge tells the administration -- show your work, produce documents and answer questions about the man they mistakenly deported and refused to bring back and do it pronto.
Also tonight, the latest on why a senior adviser to the Defense Secretary was marched out of the Pentagon in the serious allegation he is now facing.
And later, Mark Zuckerberg on the witness stand in a case that could reshape WhatsApp and Instagram and how Zuckerberg's newfound friendship with the President could reshape the case.
Good evening, John Berman here in for Anderson.
And if we're even slightly unclear before today that Maryland Federal District Judge Paula Xinis has run out of patience with the Trump Justice Department, she made it plain with just five words this afternoon. "Cancel vacation," she told DOJ lawyer, Drew Henson, and "cancel other appointments." With protesters gathered outside the federal courthouse in Greenbelt, Maryland, just outside D.C., Judge Xinis ordered the government to be ready to provide as many as a half dozen officials to answer questions under oath about what they are doing to fulfill her order to facilitate the release of Kilmar Abrego Garcia, who was arrested one month ago today, then deported by mistake to a notorious El Salvador prison.
She gave his lawyers until tomorrow to prepare those questions. The answer, she said, will help her determine if the administration has been acting in good faith, saying, "I do need evidence in this regard because to date, what the record shows is nothing has been done." Nothing, she said.
Every day Abrego Garcia is detained, she said, is a day of irreparable harm. Outside, shortly before the hearing, his American wife spoke out.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
JENNIFER VASQUEZ SURA, WIFE OF KILMAR ABREGO GARCIA: Kilmar, if you can hear me, stay strong. God hasn't forgotten about you. Our children are asking, when will you come home?
(END VIDEO CLIP)
BERMAN: He and his wife are raising a son and two other children she had by a prior relationship, all three have special needs. But this is what the President's Press Secretary says about him.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
KAROLINE LEAVITT, WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY: The Democrat and media outrage over the deportation of Abrego Garcia, an MS-13 El Salvadoran, illegal alien criminal who was hiding in Maryland, has been nothing short of despicable, based on the sensationalism of many of the people in this room, you would think we deported a candidate for father of the year.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
BERMAN: Now, she also said this.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
LEAVITT: Abrego Garcia was a foreign terrorist. He is an MS-13 gang member. He was engaged in human trafficking.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
BERMAN: And late today, the President's border czar added this.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TOM HOMAN, U.S. BORDER CZAR: He's an MS-13 gang member based on our intelligence and El Salvador's intelligence.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
BERMAN: Now, keeping them honest, the administration has produced no evidence of any of those things. The MS-13 allegation came up once on the word of a police officer, who was subsequently suspended, and the evidence, such as it was, was later discounted by the judge, who would rule in 2019, that Abrego Garcia should not be deported.
Part of the reason -- the judge determined that he faced a credible fear of persecution back in El Salvador from a violent gang he was refusing to join. Quoting the judge now, "his testimony was internally consistent, externally consistent with his asylum application and other documents, and appeared free of embellishment. Further, he provided substantial documentation buttressing his claims."
Which so far is more than the administration has done with respect to their allegations or, as Judge Xinis said today, their efforts to obey her order and facilitate his release.
Today, government lawyers tried to argue that the Presidents meeting yesterday with El Salvador's President constituted facilitating, even though, as we all saw, it seemed more like the opposite.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
KAITLAN COLLINS, CNN ANCHOR AND CHIEF WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: Do you plan to ask President Bukele to help return the man who your administration says was mistakenly deported?
DONALD TRUMP (R), PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: Which one is it?
COLLINS: The man who was mistakenly deported to El Salvador?
TRUMP: Well, let me ask, Pam. Would you -- answer that question.
PAM BONDI, U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL: Sure our President, first and foremost, he was illegally in our country. He had been illegally in our country. And in 2019, two courts, an immigration court and an appellate immigration court ruled that he was a member of MS-13 and he was illegally in our country. Right now, it was a paperwork. It was additional paperwork that needed to be done.
That's up to El Salvador if they want to return him. That's not up to us.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
[20:05:13]
BERMAN: Now, today, Judge Xinis made it clear that's not what she had in mind. Saying, "I don't consider what happened yesterday to be evidence before this court." As for what else happened yesterday, the President today expanded on this, which was caught on a hot mic and streamed live at the time by the Salvadoran government. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TRUMP: Homegrown criminals next. I said homegrowns are next, the homegrowns. You got to build about five more places.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
BERMAN: So, that was the President yesterday. Now, here's the President today on Fox's Spanish language channel.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
RACHEL CAMPOS-DUFFY, FOX NEWS CHANNEL HOST, "FOX AND FRIENDS" WEEKEND: Could we use it for violent criminals -- our own violent criminals?
TRUMP: I call them homegrown criminals. I mean the homegrowns --
CAMPOS-DUFFY: Yes, the homegrowns --
TRUMP: The ones that grew up and something went wrong and they hit people over the head with a baseball bat. We have and pushed people into subways just before the train gets there, like you see happening sometimes. We are looking into it and we want to do it. I would love to do that.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
BERMAN: Now for more on what happened in the hearing today, I'm joined by CNN chief legal affairs correspondent, Paula Reid.
Paula, what else did the judge say during this hearing and what does she want to see?
PAULA REID, CNN CHIEF LEGAL AFFAIRS CORRESPONDENT: She was clearly frustrated, John. She is turning up the heat on the Justice Department, demanding to see evidence of what steps they have taken to facilitate this man's return.
Now, she's saying look, the things you have provided me so far, like a YouTube link to that Oval Office meeting you just showed or transcript, she said. That's not going to cut it.
So, she is ordering a discovery process to begin and last over the next few weeks. So now, I mean, Abrego Garcia's lawyers, they can request depositions and additional evidence from the government.
Now, she is clear she wants this to happen quickly. She said, cancel your appointments, your vacations. She wants all of this to happen in the next two weeks. Now, as we've seen, the Justice Department has not always abided by her deadlines or provided her everything she wants, so it's unclear if this is going to work. But she has set out a very clear, very specific schedule. What she wants to happen and when.
Now, the Justice Department signaled it might appeal this order. So, John, there is a possibility that some of these questions could once again arrive before the Supreme Court, though it's unclear if they're going to take it up because they had an opportunity last week to weigh in, offer clarity on the government's responsibilities, and instead we got that really ambiguous opinion that has given rise to, I think, all this contention and confusion.
BERMAN: Paula Reid, thank you very much.
Perspective now from former federal prosecutor Jessica Roth and retired Federal Judge Nancy Gertner.
Jessica, let me just start with you. What kind of proof are we talking about here that the judge is after? What do you think would satisfy her request?
JESSICA ROTH, FORMER FEDERAL PROSECUTOR, SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK: Well, to be clear, she's given the plaintiff's attorneys and Mr. Abrego Garcia's attorneys sort of first cut at asking the questions, right. But clearly, I think she wants to see, or she intimated she might want to see the agreement between the United States and El Salvador for housing the prisoners who the United States is sending and paying for to be housed in the prison there.
What are the terms of it, to the extent that that can be disclosed? And she also wants to know who's making the decisions and what efforts are the U.S. officials undertaking to try to secure his release.
Now, she's mindful that it may be ultimately not entirely up to the U.S. officials whether he is released by El Salvador, but she at least would like to hear something from the government about what efforts it is undertaking. It probably has considerable leverage, right, given that it has this contract with El Salvador and that these individuals, Mr. Abrego Garcia, was sent at the direction of the United States government. He wasn't requested by El Salvador in the first instance.
So, she's just trying to get to the bottom of what has transpired thus far and what are the U.S.' plans to try to comply with her order, which was affirmed by the Supreme Court that it facilitate his release from custody?
BERMAN: It proved to us you're trying so far you've shown us nothing. Nothing is the word that she used.
So, Judge Gertner, what happens if the judge isn't satisfied? What recourse does she have then?
NANCY GERTNER, FORMER FEDERAL JUDGE: Well, you know, in one sense, I think that these depositions and this discovery is a prelude to a contempt finding, right.
She's getting the government to come before her. There will be depositions under oath. And if the officials are lying or if they are -- they really are sort of relying on the kind of charade, frankly, that was going on in the Oval Office yesterday, then she may well say that's enough. Again, she's not directing the El Salvadoran government to do anything. The first thing she wants to do is find out what the Americans are doing. It's so clear. All Trump has to do is ask, isn't that clear to everyone? I mean, El Salvador got this prison contract by essentially sucking up to Trump. And if Trump says bring him back, he will come back.
[20:10:06]
She, I think that she's looking to see if there's going to be a contempt hearing at some point against the officials who have been stonewalling. But if your next question which everyone asks all the time is, is this a constitutional crisis?
In one sense, it won't be a -- it hasn't been a constitutional crisis for the government to ignore orders because they have lied. Right? They're saying were doing everything we can. Now, she's going to find out if that's true.
BERMAN: You know, Jessica, everyone knows that President Trump doesn't want to bring this man back, because he said so. So what's to keep El Salvador's President who really just wants to make Donald Trump happy from saying, even if you ask, I'm not giving him because deep down inside, I know you don't want him.
ROTH: Well, the court can't order the President of El Salvador to take any particular action, but she can order the U.S. officials to take the steps that are needed to facilitate his return. And so, if it appears to her that the government officials are not undertaking such actions in good faith, then she could, as Judge Gertner said, hold them in contempt because she has ordered them to take such actions.
So yes, at the end of the day, she can't order and the U.S. Government can't order El Salvador to take any action. But it has leverage. It has means at its disposal. And the notion that it's just sort of doing nothing is untenable and is inconsistent with the court's order.
BERMAN: So Judge Gertner, the President once again today said that he's looking into and would very much like to send people he calls homegrown criminals, which presumably means American citizens, to detention centers.
In places like El Salvador in degrees of unconstitutionality. Where does that idea rank to you?
GERTNER: This is the top degrees of unconstitutionality. I've never heard that before, John. That's very interesting. Now, this is the top, right. We have we have an Eighth Amendment. You can't -- we don't believe as you know, England did in exiling people, which is effectively what this is. The other thing is that the particular prison is, you know, known for abuse and it would effectively be a life sentence.
So, I mean, it's wrong on so many levels. It has to be in the category of things that he says that he doesn't mean, as opposed to the things that he says that are not true.
BERMAN: Judge Gertner, Jessica Roth, thanks to both of you. More now on the politics surrounding this issue, a debate that the President seems perfectly happy to have and that others in his party certainly are having, happily or not.
This is Iowa Republican Senator Chuck Grassley at a town hall today.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Are you going to bring that guy back from El Salvador?
CROWD: Yes, yes, yes.
CHUCK GRASSLEY (R-IA): I'm not going to.
REPORTER: Why not?
GRASSLEY: Well, because that's not a, that's not a power Congress.
REPORTER: The Supreme Court said to bring him back. Trump don't care.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: If I get an order. For $1,200.00 and I just say no. Does that stand up? Because he's got an order from the Supreme Court and he just said no.
CROWD: Yes, yes, why.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Screw it.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
BERMAN: With us now is New York Democratic Congressman Adriano Espaillat. He sits on the house budget and appropriations committee and chairs the Congressional Hispanic Caucus. Thanks so much for being here.
REP. ADRIANO ESPAILLAT (D-NY): Thank you for having me.
BERMAN: So the judge -- the federal judge today said she's seen no evidence that the White House and the administration has done anything to bring Abrego Garcia home. Likewise, the Supreme Court ordered the administration to facilitate his return. So, does the fact they're doing nothing. Does that constitute defiance of the Supreme Court, do you think?
ESPAILLAT: I think the Trump administration is creeping closer and closer to a constitutional crisis by ignoring these orders from a U.S. court -- federal court and the Supreme Court, the highest court in the land, has instructed them to bring him back.
Now, I met with the wife and the children and the mother and his younger brother in D.C. last week, and they came. We had a press conference. He's an ironworker. The union workers were there to support him. He has gainful employment. He hasn't broken the law in the United States. Show us the evidence. If you say he's a gang member. Show us the evidence. BERMAN: He is here illegally. He is here illegally, that's against the law.
ESPAILLAT: He's here under a legal status. He doesn't have a green card, but a court has allowed him to stay here in the United States while his paperwork is being processed and being worked on.
BERMAN: The court said he can't be deported to El Salvador.
ESPAILLAT: That's correct.
BERMAN: Now, the President, one of the things that could happen, presumably is maybe he could come back and be sent to a different country. Would you be at peace with that?
ESPAILLAT: No. We want him to be close to his family. They need him. The wife and children are going through a difficult time right now. America is about family values, and we want this family to be together. He hasn't broken the law here. He hasn't been arrested. And he is on a status right now where he cannot be deported back because his life is in danger back in El Salvador.
[20:15:18]
BERMAN: You and the Congressional Hispanic Caucus sent a letter to the El Salvador's President Bukele. Has he responded?
ESPAILLAT: No, he hasn't responded. We tried to reach out to Ambassador Melina, Ambassador in Washington, and we know she was in Washington this yesterday and the day before. So, we're going to continue to try to get there. We're looking to visit El Salvador.
BERMAN: Are you going to go?
ESPAILLAT: We're looking to go. We're looking to make the arrangements to go there ourselves. First and foremost, we want to make sure he's okay. The family has not heard from him in over 30 days.
BERMAN: You are in charge of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus. You are a good politician, among many other things. You know how eager the White House is to have this battle, because they think that immigration is a good subject for them. Are you concerned that this fight pulls focus, maybe from the economy and the tariffs and the markets struggling where Democrats might be on safer ground?
ESPAILLAT: No, I don't think so. I think every time everybody goes to a supermarket and hits the cash register, they much know what's going on, whether the prices continue to be high, the economy continues to tank. The tariff war proved to be a total fiasco, and were paying for it at the cash register.
BERMAN: And you think it's worth Democratic politicians going to El Salvador to try to get him back?
ESPAILLAT: As the President -- as the Chair of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus. I will be following this, this case very closely. It's important to our agenda. He's not a criminal. He has a family, and we want him back home.
BERMAN: Just very quickly, you yourself have come under attack from some Republicans in the House who have called you an illegal immigrant, which is not true. You were brought here by your parents. You were undocumented, but have since become a legal citizen.
ESPAILLAT: That's correct, I came here at the age of nine and we came here -- we overstayed our visa. We got our green card, I became a U.S. citizen, and now I'm a member of Congress.
BERMAN: Congressman, nice to see you here. Thanks so much.
ESPAILLAT: Thank you so much for having me.
Next breaking news. A top aide to Defense Secretary Hegseth escorted from the Pentagon. Also, the President prepares to escalate his multibillion dollar pressure campaign to get Harvard University to do his bidding. And let's just say the leverage he's thinking about using is familiar to everyone each April 15th.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[20:21:55]
BERMAN: Breaking news tonight from the Pentagon, a Defense official tells CNN that a senior adviser to Secretary Pete Hegseth has been placed on administrative leave and escorted from the building.
Let's get right to our National Security correspondent, Natasha Bertrand. Natasha, what more are you learning about what happened today?
NATASHA BERTRAND, CNN NATIONAL SECURITY CORRESPONDENT: Well, John, this is a very senior advisor to Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth, who apparently was escorted out of the Pentagon today following a leak investigation in which he was apparently implicated in disclosing classified information, sensitive information. And he, as a result of that unauthorized disclosure, has now been placed on administrative leave.
Now, this all comes after two very high profile incidents at the Pentagon involving the disclosure of sensitive and classified information. One of them, of course, was that Signal-gate fiasco in which Secretary of Defense Hegseth revealed imminent war plans relating to Houthi -- strikes on the Houthis in Yemen, in which he actually named Dan Caldwell -- the individual who was escorted out of the Pentagon today as his main point of contact for the Pentagon when it came to communicating about those Houthi strikes. Totally unclear if that has to do with this leak probe.
But the other incident, of course, was that big disclosure by "The New York Times" last month about the very sensitive meeting that Elon Musk was set to have at the Pentagon, about China and China war plans that resulted in a leak investigation by the Department of Defense to include the use of polygraph tests. And, according to the Secretary of Defense's chief-of-staff, that was going to result in potentially the referral of anyone caught up in that probe to the appropriate law enforcement entity.
So, unclear at this point exactly what happened here with this individual. But clearly, they're taking it very seriously at this point, John.
BERMAN: Obviously, much more to learn here. We know you'll keep us posted.
Natasha Bertrand, thank you so much.
So President Trump today took his dispute with Harvard University to the next level. Yesterday you will recall the school refused a whole list of demands from the administration and the administration in turn, froze more than $2 billion in federal grants and contracts.
Today, on his social network, the President upped the ante, quoting him now, "Perhaps Harvard should lose its tax-exempt status and be taxed as a political entity if it keeps pushing political, ideological and terrorist inspired supporting sickness. Remember, tax-exempt status is totally contingent on acting in the public interest."
So Congressman Jake Auchincloss is a Massachusetts Democrat and graduate of Harvard. We spoke to him shortly before airtime.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
BERMAN: Congressman, the Trump administration is freezing some $2 billion in federal grants to Harvard and threatening to revoke its tax exempt status. What is your response to this?
REP. JAKE AUCHINCLOSS (D-MA): Good evening, John. Thanks for having me on.
After October 7th. I went to Harvard's campus and I spoke with Jewish students, with Israeli students, and without doubt, there was targeted harassment on that campus that needed to be addressed. And working with alumni and faculty and students, we built pressure on Harvard to change course. Working with Republicans in Congress, we've gotten the United States Civil Rights Commission to do a year-long investigation on campus antisemitism across the country, working with the Anti- Defamation League. We've gotten them to issue reports on campus antisemitism, along with recommendations.
[20:25:14]
These are all the right ways to respond to what is an endemic problem on to many universities, the wrong way to respond is to stamp right- wing politics onto universities in the name of antisemitism, and to impair funding for sickle cell disease and mobility improvements for stroke survivors, or autism research -- that does not help anybody.
BERMAN: You say it's the wrong way. What's the impact of freezing these funds?
AUCHINCLOSS: The impact is research that doesn't get done. Research into how stroke survivors can learn to use their limbs again, research into how to address sickle cell disease throughout the United States, research into the origins of autism and the countless other important work that researchers across Harvard and its academic medical centers do on behalf of public health, on behalf of National Security, on behalf of Americans.
Putting that research at jeopardy, does not make Jewish students on campus more safe. Harvard's Telos what is stamped upon its crest is the word truth. And in pursuing truth, it has to be free from politics. It has to be free from the progressive orthodoxies of the left, and in recent years, it has been captured by those, and it also has to be freed from the authoritarian impulses of the right and Harvard's response to the administration was a step on the road back for Harvard towards true freedom and truth seeking.
BERMAN: You know, you say it needs to be free of the progressive forces on the left, because in 2024, which wasn't long ago, it was just a year ago, you told Fox that Harvard and other universities have unfortunately become ransacked by antisemitism. And in the end, you said that federal funding, taking away federal funding needs to be on the table.
Now, you just said that Harvard has made some of those reforms, but what more reforms does Harvard need to make in your mind?
AUCHINCLOSS: Harvard just issued or is about to issue an exhaustive antisemitism report that in many respects scathing in its critiques of the university, and they are making changes into how they think about pedagogy, how they think about curriculum development, how they think about imparting critical thinking skills to their student body, how they think about upholding their code of conduct and their Title VI obligations. All of these need to be addressed.
And I stand by my comments from a year ago, which is to say that when Harvard is captured by the hard left, it needs to be free of that. When Harvard is being bullied by the extreme right, it needs to be free from that. Harvard and all universities need to pursue truth without fear or favor.
BERMAN: Harvard has a $53 billion endowment and in some ways, I guess this is a metaphor you'll appreciate. Harvard's a little bit like the New England Patriots. They can be easy for some people to root against. Do you feel that this is a convenient political target for the administration?
AUCHINCLOSS: Yes, the thread that ties together all of the administration's actions, whether they're taking on NATO or the National Institutes of Health or the National Public Radio, is that they don't view their actions as primarily about policy or even just about politics. It's about culture.
They think the commanding heights of Western Culture have been taken over by the left, and that they have to wage guerrilla warfare against them. And so, whether they're attacking Harvard or they're attacking the federal bureaucracy or they're attacking our European allies, to them it is about unraveling the left's supposed domination of the commanding heights of Western Civilization. So, absolutely, Harvard is a symbol more than it is a substantive target for them.
BERMAN: And just quick last question. Do you hope other universities follow suit now -- follow Harvard's lead?
AUCHINCLOSS: Not just other universities, excuse me, but across sectors. This needs to be a rallying cry, law firms, businesses. There needs to be not just solidarity within industries. There needs to be solidarity across industries. That says -- we are not going to allow these authoritarian impulses to encroach upon civil society or American's freedom.
BERMAN: Congressman Jake Auchincloss from the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, appreciate you being with us tonight, thank you.
AUCHINCLOSS: Thanks.
BERMAN: So coming up, we've just learned about some staggering amounts of money being raised by prominent Democrats, including one whose future is the subject of much speculation.
Plus, former President Biden breaks his silence after leaving the White House. We'll tell you what he has to say about the Trump administration.
And if you use Instagram or WhatsApp, you'll want to hear what Kara Swisher has to say about Mark Zuckerberg's testimony and Meta's landmark trial in Washington. Stay with us.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[20:34:43]
BERMAN: Breaking news tonight from Chicago, former President Joe Biden is going after the Trump White House in his first public remarks since leaving the Oval Office nearly three months ago. In a speech to disabled rights activists, the former president criticized the current administration as a threat to Social Security.
(BEGIN VIDEOCLIP)
JOE BIDEN, FORMER PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: God ask yourself, why is this happening? Why are these guys taking aim at Social Security now?
[20:35:07]
Well, they're following that old line from tech startups. The quote is, "Move fast, break things". Well, they're certainly breaking things. They're shooting first and aiming later.
As a result, the result is a lot of needless pain and sleepless nights.
(END VIDEOCLIP) BERMAN: Separately but related, movie superstar George Clooney is speaking out in a new interview with CNN's Jake Tapper about the controversial New York Times op-ed he wrote back in July of last year, in which he urged Biden to drop his bid for re-election.
(BEGIN VIDEOCLIP)
JAKE TAPPER, CNN ANCHOR: You yourself did something that a lot of people would call brave when you wrote your op-ed.
GEORGE CLOONEY, ACTOR: Well, I don't know if it was brave. It was a civic duty because I found that people on my side of the street -- you know, I'm a Democrat. I was a Democrat in Kentucky, so I get it. When I saw people on my side of the street not telling the truth, I thought that was time to --
TAPPER: Are people still mad at you for that?
CLOONEY: Some people, sure. It's OK. You know, listen, the idea of freedom of speech, you know, the specific idea of it is, you know, you can't demand freedom of speech and then say, but don't say bad things about me.
(END VIDEOCLIP)
BERMAN: The full interview is set to air tomorrow on The Lead. A lot to talk about domestically and overseas with Rahm Emanuel, former Chicago mayor, former congressman, former Obama White House chief of staff, and former ambassador to Japan under President Biden. He's also CNN's Senior Political and Global Affairs Commentator.
Ambassador, I want to go back to what we heard from former President Biden. It was brief there, but you got a feeling for just the idea of him making public remarks. What do you make of his -- not even his future in the Democratic Party, but his present role in the Democratic Party?
RAHM EMANUEL, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL & GLOBAL AFFAIRS COMMENTATOR: Well, look, President Biden is a friend. Our offices when I was President Obama's chief of staff were right next to each other. We go all the way back to the Violence Against Women Act, passing that and the assault weapon ban, working day and night together. We must have been on the phone when I was in the Clinton White House and he was in the Senate 20 times.
On a political level, this was wrong. And I say that with a broken heart because in 2025 elections in both Virginia and in New Jersey and in the 2026 midterms, we want this to be a referendum on the President Trump and the Republicans. They control all the gavels and they control the microphone.
They control whether the economy goes into a recession or doesn't. They control whether the tariff tax goes into place. And so to me, anything that distracts from that is bad political strategy. The argument about Social Security is right. There's no reason for grandma to be on the phone and grandpa to be on the phone for five hours. They broke it. And that's going to make a lot of people, as you see, angry. And if you go back to the election the other day in Florida, Escambia County, where Pensacola is, 14 percent veterans, double the national average.
Donald Trump took it by 19. The Democrats took it by plus three. We want this to be a referendum on Donald Trump. And unfortunately, President Biden is his foil and he's using them. And I don't think we should do anything to feed that.
BERMAN: You brought up the tariffs and the economy. The White House said today, the President did, that he's got at least 15 potential deals that he's considering. Seventy five countries had reached out. They say all of this until this point has just been about the art of the deal. How arty is it, do you think?
EMANUEL: Well, if you're into modern art, it's really great. It's all Jackson Pollock chaos. So I say that in this sense. One, President Trump is a horrible dealmaker. His China deal, a disaster. His North Korea deal, a disaster.
He's now talking about an Iran nuclear deal that looks very similar to what President Obama had. He is a horrible negotiator because he's desperate for it. I used to tell President Clinton when we were negotiating the balanced budget, do you want to get to a yes? They got to believe that you're for no. And he never does that.
Now, in all these 15 deals, he's hit allies dramatically at a point in which we want to isolate China and we isolate it ourselves. Horrible mistake. Second, this is a tax. Pure and simple. And the American people got it, which is why they're negative about the tariffs.
And third, you could have gotten a number of things with our allies. I just came back from Japan four years in a row. Number one foreign investor in the United States. A million Americans work for Japanese companies. Nearly half of them in manufacturing.
You could have induced them to make major investments in our oil and gas industry, in our auto industry, as they have done over the last 30 years. You didn't have to create this chaos, and worse than chaos, crony capitalism, and have everybody's 401K slide while your tariffs go up.
So I think he's a horrible negotiator. It's not the art of the deal. It's the art of chaos. And that's all it is. And you can't put lipstick on this pig. It's really a major mistake.
[20:40:06]
And I think it's horrible geostrategically because we had China isolated. They were dumping on the world market all their cheap subsidized goods, and the world was turning against China. We got them a get-out-of-jail card, and we put our sales behind bars this way. It was really bad, and it's an on-goal by us. BERMAN: It is interesting. This is clearly, I think, where you would like to see the Democrats fight this next campaign. And you said before you don't want it to be about President Biden. The question, who is going to fight this for the Democrats?
Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, we just learned today, raised $9.6 million during the first quarter of this year. You know a little bit about fundraising. You know, It's how you were raised in the Democratic Party, came up in the Democratic Party. It's a lot of money.
What does it tell you about where the energy is in the Democratic Party right now and with whom and what her future is?
EMANUEL: Yes, well, let me say this about the election since November and before that. In every special election before November 2024, Democrats won specials where there was low turnout. What's fascinating to me after November 2024, we are winning these special elections in Republican districts with high turnout.
Like Wisconsin was record turnout. That's also true in the state Senate races in Pennsylvania, Ohio, or rather Iowa and Minnesota, and the Supreme Court case office in Wisconsin. That tells me there's a tremendous amount of energy and it's solely focused, which is why we want this back to your first question, as a referendum on Donald Trump and his tax and the way they're going to hurt the economy and throw it into a recession needlessly.
Now, second to that is there's energy in the party out in the country. And the Washington Democratic Party needs to focus on making sure that the focus is on President Trump, what he is doing and what we're doing to stop it, which is why I would right now. There's going to be a debt limit vote in about six, seven weeks.
I would be very clear about my principles before that vote. Here's where we are on tariffs, clawing back power to Congress. Here's where we are in taxes on the wealthy. And here's where we are on cuts on health care. You need our vote to raise a debt limit. We're ready to work with you based on these three principles.
You don't meet that. You have the gavel. You have the microphone. Good luck. And that's how I would challenge them right where the debate has to be on their tariff taxes, on their health care cuts to pay for tax cuts for the wealthy. And what we're going to do is make sure that the wealthy pay their fair share. So the United States stays out of fiscal trouble, which is where the President's taking us into economic trouble.
BERMAN: Do you think it will be more successful if that argument is made with a so-called progressive wing of the party or the more centrist wing of the party? And again, you know, these Democratic town halls, which are across the country, we're seeing it every night. You've got voters coming to the microphone saying, we want you to fight harder. Why aren't you fighting harder?
EMANUEL: Yes. Well, first of all, it's fighting harder about the right things. You can fight harder on the wrong things. I think one of the lessons out of 2024 is we were seen and identified by the public, which is why we're at 27 percent in favorability, because we were fighting about things that weren't core to the American people, which is the bread and butter issues that make up their economic livelihood.
We have lost face with the voters and the public as Democrats on middle class issues in American Dream. And we got sidetracked on a set of cultural issues where we weren't core to them. And it looked like they were core to us, but not core to them.
So fighting harder, I also then, my enjoinder is fighting harder about what? And then second, as somebody that has worked on five or six national races, you got to look at the district. I don't think there's a cookie cutter approach. You tell me if in a congressional district, and I'll give you one example.
I mean, you could say whatever you want about Kamala Harris's ideology. The only two Democratic senators that ran below her versus everybody else that ran ahead of her for the U.S. Senate was Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders. So I don't know all the congressional districts or the gubernatorial races.
We're going to have moderates in Virginia. We're going to have moderates in New Jersey. We're going to have progressive. The Democratic primary voters will pick those people. And we'll see which person best positions us for the general election. Elections matter.
They have consequences. You tell me the district. You tell me the vote. And I'll tell you whether the ideology is here or there. And so, to me, the core principles are, do you believe in the American dream? And you believe the American children of families deserve a shot at the American dream, not the shaft. For too long, they have gotten the shaft.
And we have to center our party and root our party in not only believing in the American dream, believing more Americans have a shot at it than what they have gotten. They've gotten a bad deal. And it comes from both parties.
[20:45:04]
So fighting harder. I want to fight harder for the things that matter to the American people, not that just matter to Democrats.
BERMAN: Ambassador Rahm Emanuel, we packed a lot into that conversation. Really appreciate your time tonight. Thank you.
EMANUEL: Thank you.
BERMAN: All right, coming up, the fate of Instagram and WhatsApp hang in the balance as tech titan Mark Zuckerberg takes the stand in a federal court in Washington. And podcast star and tech journalist Kara Swisher is not holding back. She's going to join us live.
Plus, new details about the mysterious final days of movie legend Gene Hackman and his wife and the illness that took their lives. Stay with us.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[20:50:16]
BERMAN: Mark Zuckerberg was back on the witness stand for his second day of testimony in a blockbuster antitrust case that could potentially force his company, Meta, to sell off Instagram and WhatsApp. The Federal Trade Commission alleges Zuckerberg's company illegally built a social networking monopoly through years of anti- competitive conduct. Those are their words.
Tonight, the Wall Street Journal reports Zuckerberg called the head of the FTC back in March with an initial offer to pay $450 million in order to settle the case. According to the journal's sources, quote, "On the calls, Zuckerberg sounded confident that President Trump would back him up with the FTC".
Perspective now from CNN contributor, host of the "Pivot" podcast, and author of "Burn Book: A Tech Love Story", Kara Swisher. Kara, always great to see you.
KARA SWISHER, CNN CONTRIBUTOR: Good to see you.
BERMAN: Mark Zuckerberg worked really hard, we just learned in the Wall Street Journal, to get this case avoided in the first place. Why do you think it didn't pan out?
SWISHER: Well, he did it in plain sight. You don't have to read it in the Wall Street Journal. He was at the inauguration. He settled that $25 million case of which he was not guilty of with Trump, the liable case or whatever it was they had with Trump. But they settled that.
He gave money to the inaugural. He's visited Trump. He's gone to Mar- a-Lago. I think he bought a house in Washington. It's -- you know, this is a case a lot of people in the Republican Party, because it was started under the first Trump administration, at the end of it, want to see go through, to see what happens here when a company looks like it tried to buy competitors to put them out of business or in order to dominate a certain area, in this case, social media.
BERMAN: I mean, Zuckerberg, as you said, he worked pretty hard and very publicly --
SWISHER: Yes.
BERMAN: -- to cozy up. Has it worked? At least not yet.
SWISHER: No.
BERMAN: I mean, how frustrating do you think that is?
SWISHER: I don't think they think Mark's conversion is very real. You know, he -- they were very -- Trump particularly was mad for being kicked off the Facebook platform right after the insurrection in 2021. And so he's always been angry at him. He was angry about donations he made to make voting easier because he thought it was aimed at Democrats and not at men against him. So he's had an uphill climb. At the same time, I think they're probably right. He doesn't have any political affiliation except to the company. And that's what he was trying to do here by incurring favor with the Trump administration, including changing content moderation policies on the site too.
So he did a number of things and made a number of hires that he had hoped would do the trick. But so far they haven't.
BERMAN: Talk to me more about that. You just said you don't think Zuckerberg -- and you've consistently said you don't think he has any political ideology per se.
SWISHER: No.
BERMAN: You know, you've talked to him for decades now. How do you explain then the evolution and his changes?
SWISHER: I don't think they're an evolution. I think they're just for convenience. I think he does things for convenience. That's it. You know, I actually never had a political discussion with him, if you can believe it.
I don't think he, you know, he complained about Democrats. He complained about Republicans. He just didn't want government around at all. I think it's his favorite stance. And I think he feels that what he was doing was just part of doing business as usual. And, you know, the question is, has the market changed enough?
It's not the strongest case compared to the other tech cases, this one. But the $400 million offer is just -- he thinks it's a parking ticket or something like that. Oh, can I give you 20 bucks and let me off? You know, the last one they paid many, many years ago was $5 billion, which I called a parking ticket at the time.
And so I don't think the FTC was asking for $30 billion. I think probably somewhere around half that would have been pretty fair in this case.
BERMAN: You said you don't think this is a particularly strong case. And you talked about that on your podcast a little bit.
SWISHER: Yes.
BERMAN: Why not?
SWISHER: Well, because it's a question of what's happened since then, right? I think it's pretty hard to argue they only compete against Snapchat, though at the time they tried to buy Snapchat and then he copied it. So he did a lot of monopolistic things to try to shut down competitors.
And in Instagram's case and WhatsApp's case, they got bought. You know, in Snapchat's case, they got copied. And so that was before. See, the thing -- the industry has indeed changed and Meta is facing more competition from the likes of TikTok.
It comes to mind, I wouldn't say X as much of a competitor, but definitely YouTube is. And so they're trying to position themselves as a broader entertainment company rather than a social media network. And, you know, he's tried to do that.
He's tried to shift himself. He's like a chameleon in terms of what Facebook is. But in this case, he's trying to brought -- Amazon has done this, pretended they're competing with everybody when in fact they're not really competing with everybody.
BERMAN: Kara Swisher, great to talk to you tonight. Thanks so much for coming on.
SWISHER: Thank you.
BERMAN: All right, still ahead, new details about the mysterious deaths of film legend Gene Hackman and his wife. What Mrs. Hackman may have been trying to learn about the illness that ultimately took her life.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[20:59:29]
BERMAN: An update on the death of legendary screen actor Gene Hackman. Authorities have released a lengthy report detailing some of the last e-mails, phone calls, and Internet searches by Hackman's wife, Betsy Arakawa. The couple was found dead in their Santa Fe home on February 26.
According to investigators, Arakawa was searching for information on flu-like symptoms and breathing techniques. She mentioned an e-mail dated February 11 that her husband had woken up with cold-like symptoms, but tested negative for COVID.
Investigators believe Arakawa died around February 12 of hantavirus, which is a rare rodent-borne disease with a range of symptoms, including those contained in Arakawa's Internet searches. Hackman is believed to have died about a week later of complications from Alzheimer's.
That's it for us tonight. I'll be back with you tomorrow morning at 7:00 a.m. for CNN News Central with Kate Bolduan and Sara Sidner. Hope very much to see you then.
In the meantime, the news continues tonight. The Source with Kaitlan Collins starts right now.
