Return to Transcripts main page
CNN's The Arena with Kasie Hunt
Judge Orders DOJ To Provide Details Under Seal About Deportations Carried Out Under Alien Enemies Act; Chief Justice Issues Rare Public Pushback As Trump Attacks Judge; Trump: Call With Putin "Very Good And Productive"; Soon: Re-Entry Phase For Starliner Astronauts' Return. Aired 4-5p ET
Aired March 18, 2025 - 16:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
[16:00:01]
BORIS SANCHEZ, CNN HOST: You kind of haven't gotten yourself together, you haven't washed your face.
They're all dehydrated is the problem. When you get them in the water, they look like normal fish. People shouldn't be so mean to the blobfish. They serve an important role in the ecosystem.
BRIANNA KEILAR, CNN HOST: I don't ever believe that thing looked normal, even under a lot of pressure.
SANCHEZ: It kind of looks pretty droopy there.
KEILAR: It just looks like a gorgeous lionfish under pressure.
SANCHEZ: Maybe it had a few drinks last night, partied pretty hard, had a good time.
KEILAR: That's totally what happened to that fish.
SANCHEZ: Done that before.
KEILAR: Completely.
All right. THE ARENA WITH KASIE HUNT starts right now.
KASIE HUNT, CNN HOST: It's the chief justice versus the president.
Let's head into THE ARENA.
(MUSIC)
HUNT: Chief Justice John Roberts offering highly unusual public pushback after President Trump called for the impeachment of a federal judge. A gut reaction from former U.S. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales.
Plus, after a two-hour phone call with President Trump about the war in Ukraine, the Russian President Vladimir Putin agrees to temporarily halt attacks on one type of target stopping short of Trump's vision for a ceasefire. And two American astronauts are expected to reenter earths orbit in the next hour. The most dangerous part of their journey home after a nine-month delay.
We are standing by to see that moment live.
(MUSIC)
HUNT: Hi, everyone. I'm Kasie Hunt.
Welcome to THE ARENA. It's wonderful to have you with us on this Tuesday.
This just breaking, U.S. District Court Judge James Boasberg is giving the Justice Department a new deadline to provide additional information about deportations that the Trump administration carried out under the Alien Enemies Act, asking for the filing under seal by noon tomorrow.
In the midst of this high stakes legal showdown comes an extraordinary confrontation for the president, a rare supreme rebuke, if you will, coming from none other than the chief justice of the United States, John Roberts. He almost never breaks his public silence. But when he has chosen to do so, it's been to defend the impartiality of the branch that he leads.
So what would prompt him to speak up this time? Well, it's this post in which President Trump called for the impeachment of Judge Boasberg, who ordered the administration to halt those weekend deportation flights and who has been demanding answers about why those flights happened.
Anyway, now, it didn't take long for Chief Justice Roberts to respond to that post. He didn't mention Trump by name, but he said this in a statement released by the Supreme Court, quote: For more than two centuries, it has been established that impeachment is not an appropriate response to disagreement concerning a judicial decision. The normal appellate review process exists for that purpose.
Now, you might ask, why is Roberts weighing in now? After all, we have heard Trump attack judges before plenty of times when they get in his way.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIPS)
DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: The judge was a tyrant.
Highly conflicted and corrupt judge.
Who is so nasty, so horrible, such a brute, most vicious, vile person. These are New York judges.
(END VIDEO CLIPS)
HUNT: Now, this isn't the first time that John Roberts has done something like what we saw today. The last time back in 2018, after President Trump decried a, quote, Obama judge who blocked a border policy in Trump's first term. Then he said, quote, we do not have Obama judges or Trump judges, Bush judges or Clinton judges.
But that statement seemed to have little effect as this ensued.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TRUMP: We've got a judge who was appointed by Bill and Hillary Clinton.
Obama, Democrat appointed judge.
An Obama appointee.
A Clinton appointment.
An Obama judge.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HUNT: So what impact will Roberts' words have now?
This new attack by Trump on Judge Boasberg comes at a fateful moment, as the Trump team does appear to be going to new lengths to try to bypass judges and exert executive power over the constitutionally separate judicial branch of government.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
STEPHEN MILLER, WHITE HOUSE DEPUTY CHIEF OF STAFF: A district court judge can no more enjoin the expulsion of foreign terrorists to foreign soil, that he can direct the movement of Air Force One.
PAM BONDI, ATTORNEY GENERAL: This one federal judge again thinks he can control foreign policy for the entire country, and he cannot.
TOM HOMAN, BORDER CZAR: I don't care what the judges think.
REP. TIM BURCHETT (R-TN): We are tired of these activist judges reaching out way over their skis.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HUNT: All right. Our panel is here.
But, first, we're going to go to CNN chief legal affairs correspondent Paula Reid.
Paula, bring us up to speed. There has been some back and forth today. There's this new order from the judge in the deportation case, as, of course, we learned about this rebuke from the chief justice.
PAULA REID, CNN CHIEF LEGAL AFFAIRS CORRESPONDENT: That's right, Kasie. The Justice Department did provide Judge Boasberg with answers to questions that he gave them after yesterday's hearing by the new deadline. But he said that he has more questions and is asking by noon tomorrow, the Justice Department to answer additional questions under seal, like, what time do these planes take off from U.S. soil and from where?
What time do they leave U.S. airspace? Also looking for details about what time it landed, in which foreign countries, and also more details about the individuals who were on these flights and which one of them, which one of them were transferred based on the Alien Enemies Act.
Now this will be filed under seal, so we won't get to see those answers like we did the answers earlier today. But I spoke with one administration official who dismissed any suggestion that we are in a constitutional crisis, saying that the administration truly believes that this judge exceeded his authority.
Now, also note that in these filings, there's sort of a show of force. It's not just the lawyer who's arguing this case who signed it. These are also signed by the attorney general, the deputy attorney general, and other top officials.
And I'm told they are doing that is to show support for that line prosecutor. Because remember, that prosecutor who's up there making these arguments, they have the most to lose. This is the individual who is facing possible contempt or sanction. So I'm told these top Justice Department leaders, they want to show that they have not hung anyone out to dry, and that they all stand behind these arguments.
HUNT: All right. Paula Reid, for us -- Paula, thanks very much for that.
And joining us now, Alex Thompson, national political reporter for "Axios"; Jonah Goldberg, the co-founder and editor in chief of "The Bulwark".
JONAH GOLDBERG, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: No, not. "Dispatch".
HUNT: "The Dispatch", forgive me. You are correct.
Xochitl Hinojosa, former DNC senior adviser and communications director, and former Republican Congressman Peter Meijer.
Thank you all for being here.
Jonah Goldberg, we'll go to you first -- of "The Dispatch" --
GOLDBERG: Uh-huh.
HUNT: Because, I mean, honestly, I'm really interested in your perspective on what we are seeing play out here. I mean, when you read what Justice Roberts said, I mean, kind of the big question -- I will get to some of this later in the show as well -- is did -- I mean, did he -- is he really surprised? Is the chief justice really surprised that we are seeing this from the Trump administration?
GOLDBERG: Oh, I don't think he's surprised at all. I think he thinks it's gotten to the level where he's got to say something. Now, there are legitimate criticisms to be or colorable arguments
about what this judge has done. None of them rise to something that is remotely appropriate to calling for his impeachment, right? You can disagree with a ruling.
The Justice Department for decades had a position that you abide by court rulings, even if you think they're wrong and then you argue them.
This is a different approach, and it's the fact that you have this flooding the zone. You have, you know, Stephen Miller thinks if he yells at you enough in an interview, that somehow that will -- that's a powerful legal argument. They are -- they have not yet crossed the line fully of defying court orders, but it seems like they are laying down the rhetorical permission structure to do so.
And it's reasonable for Roberts to say, cool that, you know, like they're not -- again, they -- I don't think they've done it yet. There are a lot of people screaming that they have. They haven't, but they're getting really close to the line. And rhetorically, they're setting themselves up so that their side will be all in on it and say, yes, it's about time.
ALEX THOMPSON, CNN POLITICAL ANALYST: Trump and Roberts are creating for not just maybe one showdown, but for perhaps several showdowns over the next few years, because Donald Trump's White House is intentionally designing all these cases to go before Roberts.
I would also say that, you know, Trump doesn't necessarily expect these people to be impeached, but part of the point is to intimidate other judges that they're going to be hearing this case.
And Roberts knows this. You know, last year at his end of the year report, he said that there have been over a thousand cases in which the U.S. Marshals identified serious threats against judges in the country, and it has tripled over the last decade. And it's something he's really worried about.
HUNT: Yeah, Congressman, there was this moment that I want to bring into the conversation on the floor of the joint address to Congress that seemed like the State of the Union. It was -- it was afterward.
Let's -- let's play it. This is when -- we're not sure if this is the most recent time that Donald Trump has seen the chief justice in person, but certainly it was the last time we saw the two of them publicly together. Let's watch.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TRUMP: Thank you again. Thank you again. Won't forget it.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HUNT: Won't forget it. Now, there's been a lot of speculation about what they were talking about. Of course, the major ruling that came down in the last term was presidential immunity, which had a significant impact on President Trump's future.
But I'm really interested to know how you see this. What -- what Roberts did today and whether it will potentially. I'm not convinced it had an impact last time he said something. But now, as Alex points out, there's a lot of things that Trump actually wants from him.
PETER MEIJER (R), FORMER MICHIGAN REPRESENTATIVE: Yeah. I mean, if you think back the last rebuke. You mentioned the 2018 about the Obama judges to Trump, but more recently. It was, I think the last time he spoke publicly on sort of a political issue was in 2020 when Chuck Schumer talked about, you know, Gorsuch and Kavanaugh reaping the whirlwind.
So this is not something he likes to do very clearly. Now in terms of what it means, and where it goes -- I mean, I hope. As we've seen before, I mean, actually just recently, Trump was defending Amy Coney Barrett from a lot of folks on the right who were up in arms over another narrow decision. And, you know, getting frustrated that she wasn't, you know, a MAGA judge per se.
So he's written a line on that. I don't know what the big showdowns are going to be. I mean, I think a lot of the arguments that Trump is making, especially around executive power, you know, it goes against what I want executive power to be. But in terms of aligning with the statute and what the Supreme Court and the judiciary branch has upheld, it may very well be in line with it.
HUNT: You know, Roberts is a huge proponent of executive power.
MEIJER: Will, you know, will the, the Tren de Aragua case that its going to go before, you know, if that rises to the Supreme Court, will it be a similar verdict as in 1948, when the Truman administration was using that same Alien Enemies Act on deportations after World War II, you know, several years? That's going to be my question.
XOCHITL HINOJOSA, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: Yeah. I think it's interesting that Roberts waiting, given that the Trump administration is salivating to get this in front of the Supreme Court, I think that what is interesting, though, and the reason why I'm not as surprised by it, is because this is Trump's playbook. Anytime someone does not agree with him, he either calls for the removal or, in the Justice Departments case, removes them from positions. And so you've seen this across the federal government. He believes that people should be in line with what he is thinking. And if they are not in line, if they are not a Trump judge, then they should be removed.
And so I think you're going to continue to see this. And I completely agree that this has to -- this is what's to come. I think were trying to figure out whether or not this is -- I agree, I'm not necessarily I don't believe that they necessarily crossed the line here. But I think for future orders they could potentially do that.
HUNT: I'm interested, Jonah, why do you think it is they have been so careful to try to bend over backwards to say that they have not violated the court order here? Because, I mean, in some ways, you -- in other instances, you see them be very pugnacious and basically say, well, I mean -- and Tom Homan obviously came out and said, well, we don't -- we don't actually care at all.
But that's not what we heard from Karoline Leavitt. That's not what we're hearing from the lawyers. Why do you think that's so important to them?
GOLDBERG: Well, I mean, first of all, I think its important to a bunch of lawyers. First of all, right, like lawyers are under ethical constraints that politicians are not. If you don't, you have a duty to candor.
So if you're a lawyer that has been found to lie to a court, you can be disbarred. You can be held for, you know, contempt and all sorts of things. And so I think there's probably some pushback internally from lawyers saying, hey, you're not helping us here.
But more broadly, if lets just sort of stipulate that at some point they do want to defy a court order, maybe on the birthright citizenship stuff, they want to have that fight. I don't think they want to do it right now. So just by -- and I'm not saying that that's the plan.
I'm just saying that that's a theory out there. And if that theory is correct, you would want to pick the perfect moment to do it and not do it prematurely. Before you have the policies that you want to have the fight over lined up and ready to go.
THOMPSON: I mean, just sort of to your point, they're playing legalistic word games because they're like, we didn't defy the order, but then they're saying, well, you know, we didn't follow the, the oral order that the that they gave because, well, that didn't really count.
GOLDBERG: We didn't follow the illegitimate order.
THOMPSON: Yeah. Yeah. So they're all over the place in terms of the word games here.
HUNT: Yeah. Congressman, how comfortable are you like at the bottom of it with any of this?
MEIJER: I mean, I don't love the -- that sort of two front pressure game, right? Where on the one hand, you have the lawyers, you know, pursuing the legal challenge, and then there's a lot of rhetoric on the side.
I mean, I think that's, you know, the lens through which I always view what this administration is doing is, is this actually unprecedented or is just the rhetoric and the talk and the hype around it unprecedented? But this action, stripped of all that, stripped of all the emotion, stripped of the excitement, stripped of the, you know, midnight Truth Social posts wouldn't be out of line with what prior presidents have done.
Because I do think that a lot of the actions that this administration has taken or that have surrounded Donald Trump, if Trump's name wasn't attached to it, there would be no controversy. But also, it's fantastic for him to have the controversy, because what are we talking about? At the core root of this is whether or not the president can deport through an expedited process, as opposed to going through, you know, a three year, up to three-year process on the deportation side, violent criminal aliens who are associated allegedly with an international cartel, right?
So if Trump is centering the conversation around that, even if its going off in a thousand directions, you know, what is going to distill down to the American people? What is the narrative that the judiciary is stopping him from getting rid of violent people in this country?
GOLDBERG: It's sort of like the joint session address where he sort of cornered Democrats into not applauding for the kid with cancer, forcing Democrats to have to rise up in defense of a kid who's allegedly pro-Hamas or Venezuelan gangs, is a good -- is a political sweet spot for him.
HUNT: All right. Everybody, stand by.
Right now, we want to know, as we always do, what are you hearing?
[16:15:03]
To my sources and friends, you know who you are. Check your inbox.
Here's our question today. Should Chief Justice John Roberts have seen this coming? You have to the bottom of the hour. Send us your thoughts, tips, exclusives. If this is the wrong question, tell me what the right one is.
Viewers, we'll let you in on our conversation coming up later on in the hour.
And up next, more on the potential constitutional collision in court. We will talk with former U.S. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales. We'll be live in THE ARENA.
But, first, new details on what was said between Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin during their high stakes phone call today.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[16:20:14]
HUNT: All right. Welcome back.
President Trump says that his call today with Vladimir Putin was, quote, very good and productive, end quote. The White House and the Kremlin both announced a 30-day halt of Russian attacks on energy infrastructure in Ukraine, while talks for a full ceasefire begin in the Middle East.
Zelenskyy, the Ukrainian president, says the Russians are not ready for a ceasefire.
This is what the White House press secretary said just yesterday. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
KAROLINE LEAVITT, WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY: We are on the 10th yard line of peace, and we've never been closer to a peace deal than we are in this moment. And the president, as you know, is determined to get one done.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HUNT: The president has long boasted about his ability to end this war. It was one of many day one promises that we saw on the campaign trail.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TRUMP: Before I even arrive at the Oval Office, shortly after I win the presidency. Because of you, I will have the horrible war between Russia and Ukraine settled.
I'll get it done in 24 hours. I know them both very well.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HUNT: So it's been more than 24 hours since he became president. He is now clarifying that promise this way.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SHARYL ATTKISSON, HOST: -- candidate, you said you would have this war settled in 24 hours.
TRUMP: Well, I was being a little bit sarcastic when I said that I would. What I really mean is I'd like to get it settled and, I'll -- think I'll -- I think I'll be successful.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HUNT: A little bit sarcastic.
It's also worth noting that Russia formally annexed Crimea 11 years ago today.
Jeff Zeleny is at the White House for us. Jeff, obviously, the president did not keep that promise. He now is having to explain why he did not keep that promise.
Now, that said, I think he had hoped for more from this call with the Russian President today. What are you hearing behind the scenes?
JEFF ZELENY, CNN CHIEF NATIONAL AFFAIRS CORRESPONDENT: Well, Kasie, we know that it was a two hour phone call in the Oval Office, and that in itself, of course, is significant, but it did stop short of the broader ceasefire agreement that the president was hoping to reach, and that Ukraine has already signed on to.
But Vladimir Putin agreed to a ceasefire of the energy infrastructure. And now, you know, it's not insignificant at all. This is the first tangible sort of concession, if you will, that Putin has given on this. But look, just a short time ago in Ukraine, President Zelenskyy said he's not convinced at all that -- that Russia is interested in a longer term ceasefire.
So what this is basically is a couple steps forward. It's not necessarily the ten-yard line that the White House press secretary yesterday said this was all on, perhaps it might be, but the ball might be going the other direction.
So, look, the bottom line to all of this is yes, there are conversations. But the full ceasefire here is well short of being accomplished. And that is the reality. And, of course, no one, if the president was being sarcastic or not, no one really assumed or believed that he could stop this in 24 hours. If so, all of Ukraine may have been lost. But the reality here is that there are some more steps to go.
But also in that conversation, you know, it extended to far more than Ukraine. It extended to opening up a conversation about the economy, doing business deals, lifting up sanctions between the U.S. and Russia. So perhaps it was good for Trump and Putin. Unclear if it was good for Ukraine -- Kasie.
HUNT: Jeff Zeleny, a very good point. When were going to talk about here with the panel.
Jeff, thank you.
Julia Ioffe from "Puck" also joins us here.
Julia, thank you so much for -- for being here. And, you know, you have you have so much, you know, the depth of knowledge that you have on this region and your -- your personal connections with, with the Ukrainians and as well as Russia, really bring something remarkable to this.
And what Jeff was -- was referencing there is that the very end of this statement that the White House put out, right, they said this, quote, the two leaders agreed that a future with an improved bilateral relationship between the United States and Russia has a huge upside. Okay. This includes enormous economic deals and geopolitical stability when, quote, peace has been achieved.
He is saying that in the context of Russians continuing to attack Ukraine.
Help us understand what this all means.
JULIA IOFFE, FOUNDING PARTNER AND WASHINGTON CORRESPONDENT, PUCK: Well, the long and short of it is that Ukraine agreed to an unconditional 30-day ceasefire because they were pressured by the Trump administration and were called by the Trump administration the impediment to peace. Putin did not agree to an unconditional 30-day ceasefire.
He said that he gave the command to the Russian military to stop attacks on energy infrastructure in Ukraine.
[16:25:06]
But we now know that as we sit here taping this show, Kyiv is under attack by drones, by Russian drones, and whether they're avoiding infrastructure or not, we don't know because a month ago in Jeddah, when the Russian delegation first met with the American delegation, the Americans first asked the Russian delegation to stop attacks on Ukrainian energy infrastructure, to which the Russians said, what attacks on Ukrainian infrastructure? We are not attacking them at all. We've just been attacking legitimate military points. So I'm sure that this is what's going to be the response this time around.
As for the this kind of carrot they're dangling in front of the Trump administration, I think the Russians are very well aware that Trump just wants to get -- wants to get, just to continue the sports metaphor, points on the board, right? He just wants to make a deal. He almost doesn't care what the deal looks like.
And so, they're just -- they're like, sure, let's declare a deal. He'll give us basically whatever they want. If anything, the Russians are adding conditions as this process goes on because they can sense Trump's desperation to cut a deal.
And they're adding sweeteners like American energy companies can go back and make -- make more money in Russia, of course, it is such a hostile business climate in Russia right now to foreign companies, their assets are being seized. It's impossible to exit. The country, constant raids by the FSB, et cetera.
So we don't even know that American companies would go in. But I could talk about this forever.
HUNT: Jonah Goldberg, you -- weigh in here and just -- I mean, the fact that they talk for two hours and that Putin is not agreeing or he's not actually giving Donald Trump what he wants really remotely, and yet he's saying it really is a lot about the two of them, their relationship and some sort of accolades there.
GOLDBERG: Yeah, it's like, you know, this is fast breaking as we were coming in here. But from what I saw, the readouts from the two governments are different. The Trump administration said they got an agreement for a ceasefire for energy, infrastructure and infrastructure. The Russian readout just said energy infrastructure. And then they're attacking Kyiv.
Look, at the end of the day, Putin just said no, right, but had to give some face saving thing to Trump. That's as complicated as it gets. And the -- I totally agree with Julie about this, that what Trump wants.
It's sort of like when he said, you know, just say there's corruption in the election. I'll do the rest. He wants the headline. He wants the press release and the talking point to say, I've gotten peace when all he's gotten is a temporary ceasefire and not real lasting peace and screwed Ukraine in the process. So I think he -- he wants to sell the sizzle. He doesn't really care
about the steak.
IOFFE: Yeah, that's definitely true. And also, you know, it doesn't take much negotiating prowess to just give away the house right to the other side for the sake of a headline that you got a deal.
The second thing I would mention is, you know, Trump -- Putin made Trump wait an hour for this call, right? Which is the classic Putin power. He made Witkoff wait when he came to Moscow. This is the classic power move to show who's the big dog, who's the boss and who's not the boss.
MEIJER: Well, I'm just going to say, I mean, the one element that we haven't talked about that I think is central to how the Trump administration looks at this issue, is China. I mean, the goal of peeling and peeling away Russia from China, driving a wedge between the two, you know, doing the 2025 version of Nixon going to China and splitting in the opposite direction.
I mean, that weighs very heavily on their minds to the point where I think Ukraine and my heart goes out to the Ukrainians. I do not agree with this assessment necessarily, but that that is, you know, a trivial conflict compared to the war that they hope to prevent between China. And the more you can weaken the potential allies of China or split and cause those divisions, that could be a pathway towards a very different peace and a very different region.
IOFFE: Except that I don't think that there's going to be a split. Yeah. I think what the goal is, including by the Trump administration, is to be part of that club. And this is how Russia has been pitching it to the U.S. as well, that were going to have a Yalta 2.0 and the big three, China, Russia and the U.S., will carve up the world.
We're not going to split anybody from anybody. You're just going to join our big boy club.
HUNT: But quite the picture.
Julia, thank you so much for being with us today.
And coming up next here, we have more on our top story. The rare and stunning statement from the Chief Justice John Roberts, pushing back against President Trump. We're going to talk live with former Attorney General Alberto Gonzales.
Plus, more prominent Democrats weighing in today over whether Chuck Schumer should stay on as Senate leader after he threw his support behind the Republican spending bill.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[16:34:15]
HUNT: All right. Welcome back into THE ARENA. The president, it appears, at least for some, has crossed a line.
Chief Justice John Roberts releasing a statement today, it was a clear response to President Trump's calls to impeach the district judge attempting to halt deportation flights. Roberts wrote this, quote, for more than two centuries, it has been established that impeachment is not an appropriate response to disagreement concerning a judicial decision. The normal appellate review process exists for that reason.
To talk more about this, I'm joined now by the former attorney general of the United States, Alberto Gonzales.
Sir, thanks so -- thanks very much for being here.
ALBERTO GONZALES, FORMER U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL UNDER PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH: It's good to be with you again.
HUNT: Thank you so much.
Let's start simply with what the chief justice here said.
[16:35:02]
I mean, what does it say to you that he took this extraordinary step?
GONZALES: Well, I think he's doing his job. I'm proud of the chief justice.
You know, judges can only speak to their opinions. And so, it's -- they typically don't have the opportunity. Nor do they have the willingness to -- to defend themselves in public when they're attacked as we're seeing with this particular judge.
I think Chief justice Roberts, as the head of the judiciary, wanted to make it clear that it is inappropriate when you disagree with the decision to call for an impeachment.
What -- what I think the better course of action is to say I respectfully disagree. We'll look at the decision. We'll look at the precedent. Will it comply? But we're also going to appeal. I think that's the appropriate response. You don't give away anything, but it's respectful and it seems to me the last thing that this president would want to do is -- is to irritate the justices, because I suspect some of these cases, perhaps even this one, is going to appear before the U.S. Supreme Court.
Obviously, you know, no one is saying that what the president did was -- was unlawful. In fact, I think the courts are going to give the president a great deal of leeway and -- and discretion in the area of immigration and national security. But I think there's concern about how this happened and how did you know what -- what factors were considered in making this decision to move forward in a way, in the way that this thing unfolded?
So my expectation is the courts are probably going to find that this is perfectly lawful, because, again, in the space of immigration and security law, the president is afforded a great deal of discretion under the Constitution.
HUNT: Sir, do you think, given the -- the knowledge you have of all of the events of, of the past couple of days here through the weekend, do you think that the Trump administration defied a court order here, or did they not?
GONZALES: I -- you know, I -- I've looked at some of the filings and some of the reporting. It's not entirely clear to me whether they did or not. But if they did, there ought to be some kind of consequences.
And, you know, I think a lot of people are of the mind that there's really not much you can do if the court order is -- is, in fact, disobeyed. But that is a serious -- that's a serious occurrence. And so let's take some time to make sure that we understand what the facts are before we reach the conclusion that we have a constitutional crisis.
Again, it very well may be that the courts will ultimately decide that the president does have the authority to do what he did. And so, it just remains to be seen if, in fact, a court order has been disobeyed or not.
HUNT: What do you think about the distinction that the Trump administration is making between an oral order in court and a written one? I think it's worth noting. I mean, you yourself, the Bush administration was involved in a lot of very high stakes court decisions that were around national security and the war on terror. Can you imagine a world where a judge had given an oral order and you had said, well, we don't have to listen to that?
GONZALES: Oh, absolutely not, but I'm not sure that's what -- what happened here. There may be a question in terms of timing, but it seems to me if I hear an order in court, that order gets communicated immediately to the people involved, including the White House and the president. Because as far as I'm concerned, look, if you're in court and as, as a, as an advocate and your order to do something, you do it because that is an order and, you know, I -- I'm not aware that the judge says, well, this order is effective as of so and so time in the future. I don't think that happened.
I think the judge gave the order, and I think there's an obligation as a litigant, as a lawyer, particularly for the United States of America, to ensure that that order is complied as quickly as possible. You know, we live in an era of instant communication. It's not like the 1800s where you send someone out on pony express, for example, to make sure the order is communicated.
We have instantaneous communication. And when that order is issued by the judge, that order can be communicated to the -- to the White House and to people involved in the operation. So exactly what happened? It's still not clear to me. And, you know, I think that that is going to be the subject of additional study.
HUNT: Very briefly, sir. Do you think that the Bush administration would have gone as far as the Trump administration did here in pushing back against any district judge who made a decision that wasn't in the favor of the administration?
GONZALES: No, because I would have made sure that that what comes out of the White House is what I alluded to earlier, which is we respectfully disagree. We'll study the decision and -- of course, we'll comply with the decision, but we intend to appeal the decision, and were hopeful were going to be successful.
That's the response that I would have insisted, both at the White House counsel and certainly cautioned as -- as the attorney general is the right response.
You don't call for an impeachment of a judge, I think -- I think that's a mistake and inappropriate.
[16:40:06]
HUNT: All right. Former U.S. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales -- sir, thanks very much for being here. I hope you'll come back.
GONZALES: Thanks for having me.
HUNT: All right. Up next, here in THE ARENA, J.D. Vance getting another job today, in addition to being the vice president. It's a first for a sitting vice president. Well explain.
Plus, Chuck Schumer responding today to more calls to step aside from his leadership post as party anger grows over his support for the Republican spending bill.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
WHOOPI GOLDBERG, CO-HOST OF "THE VIEW": I'm just going to throw it out there. Why? What were you thinking and why?
SEN. CHUCK SCHUMER (D-NY): Okay. So, look, I knew it was a difficult choice, and I knew that id get a lot of criticism for my choice.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[16:45:09]
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SCHUMER: As for the Senate caucus of which I am the leader, I should be the leader. And let me just say this -- one of the things I am known to be very good at is how to win Senate seats. In other words, I'm a strategist. I'm sort of the orchestra leader, and I have a lot of talent in that orchestra. So what I do is I show them off.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HUNT: Senator Chuck Schumer holds many titles, apparently strategist, orchestra conductor and Senate minority leader. Of course, even though some in his party have been questioning whether or not he should continue to hold that last one after the Democratic meltdown over the Republican spending bill last week, Democratic lawmakers now using their week off from the chaos of Congress to fan out across all 50 states, meeting with their constituents at town halls, many of them trying to take the fight to Republicans doorsteps, hosting their events in competitive Republican districts.
The Democratic town hall blitz, which comes on the heels of several contentious Republican town halls providing frustrated voters an opportunity to press Democrats on the party's response to Donald Trump.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
CONSTITUENT: We're trying to shield ourselves before were wounded, and we don't know how. Would you mind telling your colleagues in Washington that when they're burning down this house, there's people still inside? My kid is inside.
CONSTITUENT: We want you to be straight with us. How do we go to the next level to fight this if that's the case?
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HUNT: All right. Alex Thompson rejoins our panel.
And, Alex, considering how much coverage you've done of the Democratic party lately, I'm interested in your -- your view here. I mean, I have to say there's, you know, the axiom in politics, if you're explaining, you're losing. I mean, Chuck Schumer is really having to explain himself right now. I mean, what do you make of that moment he had on the view?
THOMPSON: I think he sounded very defensive. And there's a reason why. The problem wasn't necessarily what he did at the very end. The problem was that he set expectations two weeks before they were going to hold out, and they were going to draw a line in the sand. And then he caved at a moment when the Democratic Party, including many of the lawmakers, really want to fight.
So he basically, you know, he sort of worst of both worlds there. And, you know, he might be right. There was no real path to get out of a shutdown. But his problem was that he had set expectations before. I can tell you, a lot of Republicans thought he should just keep going.
HINOJOSA: That's right. And I also think that what Chuck Schumer doesn't understand is there is a long line of people waiting to be the leadership of the Democratic Party in the House and in the Senate. What Nancy Pelosi did in 2017 is she was facing similar calls to resign, to step aside as leader. She -- many people were saying that she should step down immediately.
What she did is she brought in Hakeem Jeffries. She embraced him. She lifted him up as much as possible. And she then planned an exit. And after the midterm elections, she announced that she was going to step aside. If I were Schumer, I would embrace the Ruben Gallegos of the world.
Cory Bookers, Brian Schatz, all of these senators and try to figure out a path to an exit strategy so that you're not -- you're the distraction for the party.
HUNT: Jonah?
GOLDBERG: Yeah, I think I mean, I agree with all that. I think part of the problem is that that, well, I'm good at winning elections thing. That's not the criticism that Democrats have right now.
It's -- is he an effective wielder of power? Is -- he's the one of the two foremost elected Democrats in Washington. And the moment calls for him to do to be using government effectively to represent the -- the opposition party. And that's where he fell down.
And falling back on how -- well, it was the Senate campaign committee chairman in 2005 really doesn't work on a lot of people.
HUNT: It has been --
(CROSSTALK)
THOMPSON: In fairness -- in fairness to him, the Democrats did win four really tough Senate seats, Senate seats in states that Donald Trump won I think that's what he was referencing.
GOLDBERG: Yeah. But my point is, is that that's not the issue that's pissing people off right now.
THOMPSON: Right.
HUNT: But, Congressman, there's kind of there's two things here that that feel like echoes of the right word. But Mitch McConnell found himself in a similar position where he was at odds with the Republican base. But his claim was I can win elections and that's what matters.
And it did keep him atop the party for a long time. But it also got him booed at the Republican convention. And then there's also this question of the Republican kind of tea party movement. And when you look at some of these town halls, I almost wonder if there's something like that happening on the left. I'm wondering what you see here.
MEIJER: A total echo, I mean, I think where the GOP was in 2021, you know, I see a lot of, you know, echoes in where the Democratic Party is right now of just being rudderless, not really knowing what your next step is going to be, who's going to be the leader, what do we stand for?
You know, my view is those town halls were meant to say what we stand for is opposition to what Trump is doing. And -- and that's why we want to shine a light to these Republican members of Congress in their districts. And then what are the town halls become? Complaints about the Democratic Party, right?
They're holding up that mirror. But what it is saying is that their constituents are frustrated. They don't feel like there's a way forward.
[16:50:02]
And as a Republican, I'm more than happy to see that continue. So I'm not going to give any advice on how that may change, you know? But I think its something that if I were a Democratic member, I would want to -- I would express that frustration because they do have a bunch of strong members. There are folks who are ready to step forward. But the challenge is you have an old guard that is exceptionally old.
HUNT: Entrenched as well.
THOMPSON: I mean, that that speaks to something the most effective town halls, especially back in the Tea Party movement, weren't Republicans protesting Democrats. It was Republicans protesting their people of their own party. And that's what you're seeing right now.
HUNT: Right, yeah. And that's what's so interesting to me. I mean, and while this is happening on the Democratic side, Jonah, the march on the Republican side to kind of continue to consolidate behind the Trump movement seems to continue. The RNC announced today that J.D. Vance is going to serve as the Republican National Committee finance chairman.
How -- I mean, if you were -- I don't think you could send a more clear signal like, this guy is going to were going to have him build all the relationships with all the donors so that he can run for president in 2028.
GOLDBERG: Yeah, I mean, there's clearly a movement to anoint -- coronate Vance as the heir apparent to MAGA and/or to Trump. I'm more skeptical of it than a lot of people. But what the two things come together is that there's a lot of -- there's a lot of research on this. The base of both parties for the last ten years doesn't like their own party. They just dislike the other party more.
The Republican Party has gone through this process, and the people who dislike the establishment now, they now run everything. There's always been populism on the right. This is the first time the populist faction runs everything, and the RINOs, squish, cook, establishment conservatives Reaganites, they've all --
HUNT: First use of that word on this show.
(LAUGHTER)
GOLDBERG: And whatever labels you want to use, appropriate or otherwise, they've been all relegated. It's possible that the Democratic Party is now going through the same process, and it'll be interesting to see what faction comes out at the other side.
HUNT: For sure.
All right. Earlier we asked our sources and friends, should the chief justice, John Roberts, have seen all of this? What Donald Trump did coming? Here's what some of you had to say. One former Democratic Senate aide
wrote this, quote, he barely said anything. Roberts staked his career on expanding the presidency's power, and he is as responsible as anyone for the unprecedented moment.
And then there was this from someone who has spent time with the chief justice privately. Quote, Roberts is old school. He believes the world of politics has zero place in the world of the judiciary. Curious if that's being challenged at this point.
All right. Coming up next here, the countdown to splashdown.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[16:57:18]
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: And undocking confirmed.
Freedom is free of its moorings.
Suni Williams and Butch Wilmore begin their belated trip home.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Separation confirmed.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Undocking occurring right on time at 12:05 a.m. Central Time, 1:05 a.m. Eastern Time. Good motion. Good stability on Dragon as it backs away.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HUNT: All right. After a nine-month long delay, two American astronauts coming home soon. SpaceX will go through reentry to Earth. This is the most dangerous part of the journey. This is a live picture from mission control. Crews are currently making sure that NASA's Suni Williams and Butch Wilmore will make it home safely. Next hour, the capsule is expected to splash down off the coast of Florida.
CNN's Kristin Fisher joins us live with a look at their journey.
Kristin, it's wonderful to see you. Walk us through how we got to this moment and what we're going to expect to see unfold here in the next hour.
KRISTIN FISHER, CNN SPACE AND DEFENSE ANALYST: Yeah. Well, you'll remember that NASA astronauts Butch Wilmore and Suni Williams, they first launched to the international space station back in June on a Boeing Starliner spacecraft. But it was the first test, first crewed test flight for this spacecraft. And so there were some issues with it.
And ultimately, NASA decided that they just didn't think that this spacecraft was safe enough for Butch and Suni to return on. So the spacecraft returned uncrewed to earth with no issues, and Butch and Suni became a part of a long duration space station mission. They became a part of Crew-9, and so they spent nine months up there doing things, spacewalks, conducting scientific experiments.
They became part of political fodder as well as I'm sure you're aware of, Kasie. And so now they are returning to Earth, and in just about ten minutes, Kasie, they will begin their most dangerous part of this return journey, the de-orbit burn, which is essentially when the engines fire and the spacecraft essentially pumps the brakes and begins to reenter the Earth's atmosphere.
HUNT: Kristin, why is it that NASA says that they were not, quote/unquote, stranded? Can you help me understand the controversy around this?
FISHER: I would love to, because -- at no point in time did these astronauts not have a ride home. There was always a spacecraft that was docked to the International Space Station that could have gotten these astronauts home in an emergency.
In fact, the spacecraft that they are in right now that is making its way back to Earth as we speak, that spacecraft, the SpaceX Crew Dragon capsule, has been docked to the International Space Station since September.
So, you know, its kind of akin to, you know, the military would never abandon, you know, a member of the military, just like NASA would never abandon an astronaut in space, Kasie. And so that's why there was always a spacecraft available to get them home -- Kasie.
HUNT: All right, Kristin Fisher, thanks for clearing that up. Thank you for your reporting.
Thanks to my panel as well.
"THE LEAD WITH JAKE TAPPER" starts right now.
