Return to Transcripts main page
CNN's The Arena with Kasie Hunt
Judge Scolds Trump DOJ For "Disrespectful" Language; Trump Denies NYT Report Musk To Be Briefed On China War Plan; AOC, Sanders Rally Voters In Colorado Amid Democratic Angst; Judge: Mariah Carey Didn't Steal "All I Want For Christmas Is You". Aired 4-5p ET
Aired March 21, 2025 - 16:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
[16:00:04]
BRIANNA KEILAR, CNN HOST: Some kind of dance party going on in that rock there. Its one of the highest concentrations of footprints ever documented in Australia.
BORIS SANCHEZ, CNN HOST: Were they doing the Nutbush that Australian dance?
KEILAR: They were -- they must have been doing it very, excitedly.
SANCHEZ: Emphatically, yeah, in tribute to Tina Turner, of course.
KEILAR: It makes total sense on the timeline. No, it doesn't.
All right. THE ARENA WITH KASIE HUNT starts right now.
(MUSIC)
KASIE HUNT, CNN HOST: The judge versus the Justice Department.
Let's head into THE ARENA.
(MUSIC)
HUNT: The judge hearing challenges to the Trump administration's deportation flights comes face to face with Justice Department lawyers and blasts them for what he calls disrespectful language and accuses the Trump administration of not being cooperative.
Plus, Elon Musk's visit to the Pentagon raising so many questions. Was he there solely to discuss the work of DOGE? Or was something else supposed to be on the agenda?
And the AOC, Bernie Sanders progressive road show heads to Colorado, roughing up crowds otherwise disillusioned by the Democratic Party. We'll get reaction from Colorado's Democratic governor, Jared Polis.
Hi, everyone. I'm Kasie Hunt. Welcome to THE ARENA. It is wonderful to have you with us on this Friday.
We do want to get straight to the breaking news on the legal showdown over President Trump's mass deportations under the Alien Enemies Act. The judge in the case just came out swinging at Justice Department lawyers as he grilled them on what they knew about the flights.
CNN's Kara Scannell has been covering all of it for us.
Kara, we understand the hearing just wrapped up. Bring us up to speed on what we heard here.
KARA SCANNELL, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Yeah, Kasie. The hearing just ended. It lasted about an hour and a half. And what took place in this hearing was these questions about what authority does the judge have here to deal with the deportations under the Alien Enemies Act of 1798, in which those members of non-citizens who are Venezuelans whose --
HUNT: Looks like we lost Kara there. We'll work on getting her back, but we will discuss this now with my panel.
CNN special correspondent Jamie Gangel is here in THE ARENA for the first time.
Jamie, good to have you.
JAMIE GANGEL, CNN SPECIAL CORRESPONDENT: Thank you.
HUNT: Elliot Williams, CNN legal analyst, former federal prosecutor. Ashley Allison, former Obama White House senior policy adviser. And David Urban, Republican strategist and a former Trump campaign adviser.
Welcome to all of you.
ELLIOT WILLIAMS, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: Thank you.
HUNT: I want to put a little bit more meat on the bone, because, of course, we lost Kara there. The top line quote from Judge Boasberg here, he told everybody, quote, the government has used intemperate and disrespectful language that he has never seen from the United States.
Now, of course, by the United States, he means the Justice Department. He went on to say, quote, I often tell my clerks that the most valuable treasure they possess is their reputation and their credibility. And I just ask you to make sure your team maintains that lesson.
Now, I think we do have Kara back.
Kara, have we recovered you from the bars? There you are.
So I just read the two quotes that we had prepared there from this judge. My understanding of this is he seems to think that some people that went before him, either they were misled by the Trump administration and came in not knowing the things that they that he expected them to know or that they misrepresented things and potentially lied to him. Can you explain?
SCANNELL: Yes. The judge is really trying to get at the issue here of whether his order was violated. So he asked the attorney for the Justice Department in the room today, who was in the room over the weekend when the judge issued that order from the bench saying to stop the planes, he asked that lawyer, what was your understanding of what I had said at that point? And the attorney said that he understood that the judge's order was binding and that was effective immediately. So when he said it from the bench, because the Trump administration officials have suggested that maybe it wasn't official until it was a written order.
So the judge wanted to get on record right then and there, that the attorney in the room who relayed the conversation believed that the order was in effect the moment the judge said it from the bench.
Now, this lawyer had said that he couldn't share the details of what he discussed with his clients, the executive branch, because that was covered by attorney-client privilege. But the judge really trying to make sure that he has on record that the lawyer in the room was not mistaken, and that he knew that the order was to stop the planes when the judge said it from the bench. Now, the bulk of this hearing was also focused on what exactly the judges role here could be, because, you know, there's these issues of people being deported.
And the judge saying that this actually raises some serious policy implications. He said that its incredibly troublesome, problematic. And concerning the way that this is being applied under the Alien Enemies Act of 1798, saying it is unprecedented and expanded use of this and that if this is allowed to proceed, it could mean that the president could deport anyone from the country, even, say, a Chinese fisherman who is in the U.S. waters.
So, you know, trying to get at what the scope of what could entail here, if individuals who are picked up are not able to challenge that. And that's a lot of what this focus was on, what would be the proper way for someone to say that they are not a member of this Venezuelan gang. That was the basis for their removal.
You know, the judge, though, really began the hearing focusing on his order and whether that was violated. And also coming right back to that at the end of the hearing, because he had said he noted that the government, he said, was not being cooperative. But he said, I will get to the bottom of whether my order was violated. Who ordered the violation of the order and what those consequences will be.
So no decision here today on whether the judge is going to change the scope of this, this temporary order blocking the deportation. But he's certainly saying that he is not giving up his quest to find out whether his order was violated and who is behind that -- Kasie.
HUNT: All right. Kara Scannell for us. Kara, thanks very much for that reporting.
Jamie Gangel, and, Eliot, I want your perspective as well, because you've worked inside the Justice Department. These are some pretty tough words from this judge. And I know you've got sources you've been talking to about -- about how this is all landing. GANGEL: So, first of all, I'm not surprised that he said this today
and. Not the lawyer. But as the daughter of a judge, let me tell you., those words translate into something that you can't even say on cable television. He is -- he is furious.
And talking to legal experts, I think we have to keep in mind that the judge was not just speaking about this case today. This is a message to the Trump administration, to the Trump DOJ, that this is not acceptable.
HUNT: Yeah. Elliot?
WILLIAMS: You know, I think if we just step back, two things can be true at the same time. One is that there are people that we don't want in the United States, either as a matter of morals or as a matter of law. And two, that the methods for getting those people out of the country might be improper, right?
The only party who can answer that is the judge. And all the judge was doing and has been doing throughout this matter is trying to get to the bottom of number one, who are the people that were on that plane? And number two, what are the means by which you sought to get them out of the country?
Those are basic questions a judge ought to be asking. And the language the Justice Department used -- accusing the judge of beating a dead horse and so on, which sounds like we would joke with each other and use that language in common parlance. You don't use that language when speaking to a judge.
Now, you could use it when criticizing.
ASHLEY ALLISON, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: Or you shouldn't.
WILLIAMS: Or you shouldn't. One ought not.
Now, when criticizing another party or the strength of their argument, certainly, you know, you might see that kind of thing, but it was and has been a tone that is pretty remarkable in court. And the judge spoke unambiguously about it today.
HUNT: David Urban?
DAVID URBAN, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: Yeah. Look, I, of course, think a little bit differently here. You know, you know how you're -- you know how they know their Venezuelan gang members because their tattoos that say, I'm a Venezuelan gang member, that's how you identify these guys.
They've been locked up. These are violent criminals that nobody wants. Were not deporting some hypothetical Chinese fisherman who floated into territorial waters, and we snagged him. These are bad guys, bad people.
We want them out of the country again. Put them on a plane, a boat, a train. Get them out of the country as quick as we can. I applaud the Trump administration, and I guarantee you, 90 percent of
Americans applaud the administration and are looking at this judge saying, what the hell are you talking about?
WILLIAMS: No, no. And where and where you and I differ respectfully, is I think if they're Venezuelan gang members, get them out of the country, right?
URBAN: Yeah.
WILLIAMS: But the question is, if you're using the Alien Enemies Act, there's a legal question as to whether that's even proper for an organization that, number one, you cannot. And even the United States intelligence community has left open the question of whether they're an arm of the Venezuelan government. And, number two, whether they are actually gang members.
One guy had a Real Madrid tattoo. I hope that my Yankees tattoo doesn't get me deported.
ALLISON: No, but I think -- I think -- I think the thing -- there's no surprise that this is actually what the Trump administration is testing right now. They are picking strategic issues, that this is a policy issue versus a procedural issue.
So the policy, we have elections that we elect a president who says he's going to deport anybody basically that is not --
HUNT: And the politics are where David says they are.
ALLISON: They are. They are.
(CROSSTALK)
URBAN: If these people were in your neighborhood --
(CROSSTALKJ)
ALLISON: And so -- that's not -- that -- that's right.
The beauty about this country, though, is that we have procedures and we don't want to disrupt our procedures to then undermine our Constitution and the institutions that make America special.
HUNT: Ashley, can I -- can I just push back a little bit, though, because part of me wonders if -- if it is the procedure and a very fundamentally broken process that has made people feel as frustrated as they do about immigration. So, I mean, doesn't that suggest that the process needs to be changed?
ALLISON: Well, the -- that's congress, though, I think if we actually.
HUNT: But Congress clearly --
ALLISON: Clearly, right, right, right. So we're going to talk about that later. But it's not that the judicial branch that people are frustrated with. I actually think that --
URBAN: This case --
ALLISON: Well, well, but that's why we have three steps in our judicial branches. The district court now, it's going to go to the appellate. And we have a Supreme Court.
And what I think the biggest the reason why the judge is so frustrated is that because it feels like the Trump administration is talking out of two sides of its mouth. It's saying that the attorney was like, no, we understood your order. And then Karoline Leavitt said the order was something different.
I don't know her background, but I don't think she's an attorney to really even be speaking on that.
HUNT: Well, let's play a little bit of what the Trump administration has said about, because I think the big picture conversation here, right, that were having is about how the executive branch is interacting with the judicial branch and whether or not the way that that's happening is following the guidelines that our Constitution lays out.
So here are a series of the Trump administration officials attacking the judge in this case. Watch.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
PAM BONDI, ATTORNEY GENERAL: The judge had no business, no power to do what he did. They're meddling in foreign affairs.
STEPHEN MILLER, WHITE HOUSE DEPUTY CHIEF OF STAFF: You cannot have a democracy where single individual, district court judges can assume the full total powers of the commander in chief.
TOM HOMAN, BORDER CZAR: I can't believe there's any judge in the country that would want terrorists, a plane turned around over international waters and returned terrorists to the United States.
KAROLINE LEAVITT, WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY: It's very, very clear that this is an activist judge who is trying to usurp the president's authority under the Alien Enemies Act.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HUNT: So, David -- yeah, go ahead.
URBAN: See, I was going to say what? So what Elliot's talking about the nub of this, right is where the president has very has almost unfettered discretion when it comes to foreign affairs, right? When it comes to his dealing with other countries, right? And how he conducts foreign affairs. And as was stated, there is pretty much you can't really touch him. A district court judge can't really question that kind of thing.
And what Elliot's point was, does this fall within that rubric? Does this instance fall within the -- do these gang members fall within the as enemies, or are they part of the Venezuela thing, and how is that characterized?
WILLIAMS: But --
URBAN: And I think this administrations position is, yes, we are at war here. This is a war. And were these people are combatants and that kind of sense.
WILLIAMS: But that's a question that a judge resolves. And let's go back to the war on terror throughout the trial.
ALLISON: Right, we're not actually at war.
WILLIAMS: But -- but imagine if we are, a judge will make the determination as to whether that's a proper application of the law. It's not just for the administration to say, how dare the judge even ask this?
URBAN: Well, it's administration -- it's their -- it's their position, right? And they're pushing their position is and is noted, right? It's a very popular political position. And so the administration is saying we're putting our marker here. We dare you, come at it. We'll see what the American people say.
ALLISON: I say there's double sidedness of it. I think it's like what -- I think it's the fact that he -- the cuteness of saying like the verbal order versus the written order. I think that's actually what got them in trouble here.
GANGEL: Can I just say, David, though? Absolutely. These folks may not be sympathetic. The process may be flawed and needs to be fixed.
But what we saw here today and the other day as well, with how the DOJ lawyers are speaking to the judge or not answering the judge's questions, which, as Elliot points out, just the facts, right? He's asking just the facts.
This really speaks to a bigger issue, which is that Donald Trump and his Department of Justice are pushing the envelope. They are walking up to, according to the legal experts I'm talking to, they are walking up to defying the court.
URBAN: Well, and this is this is -- yeah, this is the issue here. DOJ's interpretation of this provision and the court's interpretation of this provision. DOJ, Pam Bondi and others in the White House clearly feel that they were well within their bounds of doing this, and this judge feels that they're not. And so well find out the appellate court.
HUNT: Yeah. Yeah, we will. Okay.
Everybody, stand by. Right now, we want to know, as we always do every day. What are you hearing to my sources and friends you know who you are. Check your inboxes. Here's our question for today. Is Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, the future
leader, current leader of the Democratic Party? Get to the bottom of the hour. Send us thoughts, tips, exclusives. If it's the wrong question, tell us what's right. Viewers, we will let you in on the conversation later on in the hour.
And up next here, just what was Elon Musk doing at the Pentagon today? The president and defense secretary say that he definitely was not getting briefed on secret plans for war with China. We'll discuss.
Plus, Colorado Governor Jared polis is going to be live right here in THE ARENA.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[16:19:09]
HUNT: All right, welcome back. Today, Elon Musk on a mission at the headquarters of the most powerful military in the world for a private audience there at the Pentagon with the top brass. The question we are all trying to answer is for what?
Elon himself wouldn't say anything to reporters as he left a meeting. See him there? He had plenty to say beforehand on his platform X, he denied multiple reports that he was there to view top secret plans for potential war with China.
"The New York Times" breaking the story. They were followed by the Rupert Murdoch owned "Wall Street Journal", also reporting there would be a briefing on China war plans. What?
Let's review why this might be a problem. Musk has massive financial interests in China through his car company, Tesla, and he has huge government contracts for SpaceX and his satellite company, Starlink.
[16:20:09]
And there's this question where exactly does his loyalty lie? The times reporting sparked furious denials from up and down the government, and it culminated with President Trump addressing reporters in the oval office with his defense secretary.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: I don't want other people seeing anybody seeing potential war with China, but certainly you wouldn't show it to a businessman. Elon has businesses in China, and he would be susceptible, perhaps, to that.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HUNT: Okay. That is actually really striking. The president really seems to understand just how problematic doing this would be. And there are efforts at the Pentagon to make cuts to the workforce, as Musk's DOGE has been doing across the government. So this is what they say. Why they say he was there instead.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TRUMP: Elon was over there today to address costs. DOGE.
PETE HEGSETH, DEFENSE SECRETARY: We welcomed him today to the Pentagon, to talk about DOGE, to talk about efficiencies, to talk about innovations.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HUNT: So "The Times" had reported that Musk's meeting was going to take place in what is known as "The Tank", a secure area deep inside the building where things like plans for war with China could be safely discussed.
Now, as you see here, these are pictures of his meeting. The sun is coming in the windows. That ultimately did not happen.
President Trump, of course, attacked the news outlets who reported the planned meeting.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TRUMP: I might add that I think Elon, if you -- if they ever wanted to do that, I think Elon wouldn't do it. I think he wouldn't do it. He wouldn't want to put himself in that position.
But if you read what's out of "The New York Times", it's such a dishonest newspaper. It's such garbage.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HUNT: Jamie Gangel --
GANGEL: Yes.
HUNT: -- to be clear, we are reporting at CNN. We did not report what the times in the journal reported. We have been obviously trying to get our own information about this, but clearly something changed after these stories came out.
What is your understanding of the significance of -- of what these plans are? And I mean, the thing that really I think is most fascinating is that Donald Trump was actually willing to say, yes, actually, this would be a huge problem. No, he can't see them.
GANGEL: This was impressive rapid response. And Donald Trump gets it.
What we saw today is that the Trump administration understands and Donald Trump understands that with Elon Musk and such sensitive information, this -- you know, this is the third rail. People have already said that they are very concerned about the Treasury Department, about Social Security. They do not they are not comfortable with Elon Musk having sensitive information. Let me just tell you, the little that I know about the China war
plans, because nobody would tell me about them. And I don't have any business interests or conflict of interest. But when I've spoken to very senior intelligence people about it, not only is it the most sensitive, but when they talk about it and these are, as I would say, tough cookies, they sound scared when they talk about it.
HUNT: About war?
GANGEL: About -- about war with China and what they know and what could happen.
HUNT: David Urban?
URBAN: Yeah, I will say this. The reporting is I mean, I know that some of the reporters on those bylines, I think it's ridiculous. I literally think its ridiculous reporting. I think its not even doesn't even pass a straight face test for a variety of reasons, right?
So I've been to the tank, I've been to the secdef's office, I've been to the chairman's office, every service secretary's office.
So just -- just because the picture with Pete Hegseth and Elon Musk was standing in Pete's office doesn't mean it didn't go to the tank. It's just down the hall from where they operate. But -- but the notion, there's a - there's a notion of need to know, right? So why -- why would they show Elon Musk -- it's not like he's on some tourist.
Why would they bring Elon Musk and show him the most sensitive war plans? It strains credibility. There's absolutely zero reason. Elon Musk and Jamie, to your point, the things that he's getting at DOGE from -- from Treasury and all these all these lists of names, they're -- they don't have any names.
They're just -- they're just digits. They're just binary, it's zeros and ones. And he's looking for outliers.
They're looking for crazy things in the data. He's running it through A.I. They're not sifting through to find somebody's grandmothers Social Security check.
So what he's doing there is it's basically the same kind of thing. I know that the secretary, the deputy secretary, lots of people were in that room. And -- and they're looking at trying to find efficiencies, right?
This is the biggest part of the federal budget. They have almost $900 billion a year spend. They've not passed an audit. The Department of Defense can't tell you where there's money going. I don't know if everyone hasn't seen the clip with Kat Hicks and Jon Stewart where Jon Stewart asks her about, you know, you can't pass an audit and she's like, well, why should we be able to tell you where our money goes?
It's ridiculous. And I think Elon's there to help try to drill that down. And we should all be applauding that.
Listen, if we can't figure out where our money is going in the Department of Defense, we're doomed.
[16:25:02]
We can't -- we can't fix our government.
HUNT: I take your point, David, can I -- can I ask you as someone who clearly -- I mean, you have so much expertise and understanding. You've served the country like you've been in these rooms, as you point out. What would the implications be? And I also take your point. I understand that the administration and you are taking issue with how it was reported.
We do know Elon Musk is very interested in China, right? There have been other -- other places like where he's said, you know, id like some more information. What do you think is the national security imperative? I mean, because the president seemed to say, actually, it would be a problem if we told him too much about it.
I mean, what do you think are the risks if -- if he were to be able to get out?
URBAN: But he's not -- he's not going to. No one's giving him.
HUNT: But can you just help us understand though?
URBAN: So, so everything is compartmentalized to begin with, right. So just because you have a TSC/SCI, TK, no matter, you could have, you could have a super top secret special access programs. You don't know what Elliot knows what you know. We all know different things.
WILLIAMS: I know a lot.
URBAN: But we all know different things because that's how the -- that's how the -- that's how compartmentalized intelligence works. Nobody they're not laying the war plans out on the desk and saying, we're going to go here, we're going to do this. This is what's going to happen.
Nobody -- very few people have that information, right. And so, it is laughable that that would be even talked about, that Elon is going to be coming. They're going to give him a download on how were going to fight the coming war with China.
ALLISON: I guess -- I guess --
URBAN: It just doesn't work that way. Just doesn't work that way.
ALLISON: Okay. Yeah. And this administration doesn't work like most administrations do.
(CROSSTALK)
ALLISON: So let me just finish.
URBAN: Now, you're talking about there's the chairman of the Joint Chiefs. ALLISON: No, but let me just --
URBAN: Generals and admirals.
ALLISON: I think the challenge is I acknowledge that Trump said this would be a problem because it would be a problem. I think the -- the process, again, about how DOGE has operated in every other agency gives the American people reporters the right to question about what -- I mean, we had -- we did we agreed. We agreed.
Why didn't he start at the Pentagon? Why did he start at some of the smaller agencies like aid or the Department of Education?
I'll just also say there is -- there's -- there was probably another way around this. He still doesn't need China war plans, but he could have released all -- all of his stocks. He could have been more did more disclosures on what his conflict of interest was.
But none of that is happening. So we have to ask these questions because they're not following regular protocol.
HUNT: One second. One thing I do think that may help us understand or explain a little bit about why we heard the president be so firm about this.
Let's just watch. Steve Bannon has been on a tear about Elon Musk. The you know, his Donald Trump's OG MAGA guy. Just watch what he said recently about Elon and China.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
STEVE BANNON, HOST, BANNON'S WAR ROOM: Elon Musk is a total and complete phony. He is owned lock, stock and barrel by the Chinese communist party. And he acts like it.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HUNT: I mean, Elliot, does that help explain why Trump sees so much like clearly political risk here?
WILLIAMS: Yeah, perhaps. But you know, to the -- to the broader point about, you know, does it strain logic or strain reason to think what Elon Musk might have been in the Pentagon? I think we can all agree that Elon Musk is probably more involved in the inner workings of government than any private citizen has been in any administration we've ever lived through Reagan, Bush, Clinton, whatever else.
It does not defy reason, and this is Ashley's point to at least ask the question like, well, why wasn't he in a top secret briefing at the Pentagon, looking at everything else he's done and had access to? I think it's a fair question that multiple newspapers now seem to have confirmed.
URBAN: Yeah, but -- but again, we don't know if he was in a top secret meeting.
WILLIAMS: Sure.
URBAN: It looks from the -- from the photos I saw, the spray I saw, he's sitting in a conference room talking about budget numbers, the tank, you know, is.
WILLIAMS: Yeah.
(CROSSTALK)
HUNT: You wouldn't put the tank.
(CROSSTALK)
ALLISON: Right.
WILLIAMS: The whole point was --
URBAN: That's my point.
WILLIAMS: -- there was two days of or a day of denying, oh, it's preposterous. He would never have a meeting in the tank. And then these articles came out saying, yeah, it looked like he was.
URBAN: Yeah.
HUNT: So briefly, I want to bring in some great reporting that Jamie has done into this conversation, because we've been talking about how Elon Musk has basically been able to kind of do whatever he wants.
Jamie, you're reporting that Marco Rubio, I don't want to take the time to play the sound bite right now. Trump went out of his way to bend over backwards to praise Marco Rubio today from the Oval Office. Perhaps he saw your reporting suggesting what?
GANGEL: So I think that maybe the best thing that happened to Marco Rubio today was our reporting, because Donald Trump did a shout out like we've never seen about how wonderful he is and -- and everything.
Our reporting today was that while Marco Rubio went into the job of secretary of state with eyes wide open, he has been, according to many sources, more than a dozen sources, frustrated with his role because of Steve Witkoff, who is a billionaire, best friend and buddy of president Trump and who has had a very high profile role. As -- as one source said to me, Steve Witkoff -- Steve Witkoff is running around playing secretary of state.
[16:30:05]
HUNT: Meeting with Putin.
GANGEL: And now, I want to just say Marco Rubio is not the first secretary of state to deal with this. You can ask you know, Rex Tillerson and Mike Pompeo how they felt about Jared Kushner.
HUNT: Yeah.
GANGEL: You know, doing this kind of diplomacy.
But I think that all we have to think about is look back to that meeting in the Oval Office with Zelenskyy and that very uncomfortable picture of Marco Rubio sitting there. One source called it the couch slouch.
HUNT: Yes. The couch slouch, indeed.
All right. Coming up next, there it is. The couch slouch. Oh, God, he looks so unhappy to be there.
All right, coming up, AOC and Bernie Sanders continuing their, quote, fighting oligarchy, end quote, tour today in Colorado. Here with us live is the governor of that state, Democrat Jared Polis, up next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[16:35:23]
HUNT: Welcome back to THE ARENA.
Just moments ago, Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Senator Bernie Sanders holding a town hall in Greeley, Colorado.
Ocasio-Cortez offering some not so veiled criticism of her party's leadership.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
REP. ALEXANDRIA OCASIO-CORTEZ (D-NY): I will say, Colorado, that when other Democrats caved, your Senators Michael Bennet and John Hickenlooper stood strong against the D.C. pressure and voted.
No, those leaders on either side of the aisle who are willing to put their fellow Americans down so that they can get ahead or feel better about themselves, those folks may best find a home somewhere else.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HUNT: All right. Joining us now to discuss, Colorado Democratic Governor Jared Polis.
Governor, thanks so much for being on the show.
GOV. JARED POLIS (D-CO): Thank you, Kasie. Good to be here.
HUNT: So let's start right there with Congresswoman Ocasio-Cortez and her criticism. Is she right about Democratic leaders and how they handled the government shutdown?
POLIS: Hey, we welcome everybody to Colorado. It's great to have this level of grassroots enthusiasm. I certainly hope that they're enjoying, you know, AOC, and Bernie and the entourage are enjoying Colorado restaurants and staying in our hotels.
And it's great to see her praising our Senators John Hickenlooper and Michael Bennet. I'm proud of both of them and very supportive of both of them.
HUNT: But that's as far as you'll go. Do you disagree with what they had to say about how that should have been handled?
POLIS: Well, she praised our senators. I praised them, too. So, I mean, I like the way Michael Bennet and John Hickenlooper are handling things. I think, you know, in AOC's opinion, they're among the good guys in Washington.
HUNT: All right.
POLIS: I agree, Michael Bennet and John Hickenlooper are absolutely among the good guys fighting for the right things in Washington. And there's Republicans and Democrats on the wrong side as well.
HUNT: Governor, we recently here at CNN asked our poll respondents in this poll that we did to name who they believed the Democratic Party leader was right now, and we didn't give them a list of choices. We asked for them to tell us. And the person at the top of the list was actually Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez.
Now, obviously, this is a very split. She had 10 percent, but she was up above Kamala Harris at 9 percent.
Who do you think is the leader of the Democratic Party right now?
POLIS: Well, you know, look, look, our true north, certainly my true north are ideas to make life better for people, I think who delivers on them are secondary. We need to make life more affordable for Americans. We need to make safer, reduce crime. I mean, these are the ideas that carry the way we have universal preschool and kindergarten free for parents in Colorado now.
It's not -- what the minute politics becomes about the who rather than the what I think is when we start losing.
HUNT: But -- but, sir, with all due respect, the main sort of message out of the 2024 election that I've heard from Democrats across the country is that our ideas were there. We just didn't have the right people to sell them. I mean, don't you need a person to stand up to a candidate like Donald Trump, for example?
POLIS: I think what you need is an idea to decrease people's health care premiums rather than increase, an idea to decrease crime by being tough on criminals and preventing criminals from re-offending, and making sure we provide youth alternatives to turn away from a life of crime.
I mean, we need to deliver on those things and the data needs to bear out that it's working. One example in Colorado, we need to reduce housing costs. We're building more housing. We've removed barriers that prevented housing from being built.
And, of course, the people of Colorado will judge me and other elected officials here based on how well we deliver. Politics is simple. You say what you're going to do and you do it. HUNT: Fair enough. Governor, I do want to ask you about something that
you put up on Twitter as the Trump administration was coming into power, and that was RFK Jr.'s nomination as health and human services secretary. And I'd just like to know, one month in, do you stand by your support?
POLIS: Well, look, I mean, RFK, as you know, ran against Joe Biden in the Democratic primary. I supported Joe Biden, but I'm always been fond of anybody who is a Democrat and runs a Democratic primary. I think he's the only Democrat we have in there, and he's a lot better than last time when Donald Trump chose a pharmaceutical lobbyist to put in at HHS.
I hope RFK takes the steps to reduce chronic disease, to improve health. Obviously, I'd like to see him more outspoken on the benefits of vaccination.
[16:40:04]
We're seeing the horrible impact of measles in Texas, and we're worried about that here.
But again, compared to other Trump administration appointees, I think we need to work with whoever we can to move our country forward and show -- show the difference.
HUNT: Do you think there's any danger to some of the things that RFK Jr. has said about remedies for measles that are not valid, such as vitamin A and some of the other things he has thrown out there as things people should potentially do instead of getting vaccinated.
POLIS: Well, hopefully not, instead, Kasie. The only truly effective way to significantly reduce the likelihood of a measles infection by well over 90 percent is to be vaccinated. And that's most important.
Separate and distinct from that, in general, the healthier you are, we hope you don't have vitamin A deficiencies. We hope people are healthy. There's a whole host of benefits to that from the health perspective.
But if the goal is preventing measles, the most effective way to do that is vaccination.
HUNT: Sir, I also I know that one -- one issue you are very focused on is tariffs. And the Trump administration still is planning significant tariffs to go into effect on April 2nd. How is that impacting your state?
POLIS: Look, there's no way to dress that up. The threat of tariffs and the actual tariffs are devastating and recessionary. They're destroying jobs already because people are delaying investment and canceling investment not knowing what's to come. And also it's fundamentally a tax on consumers that will increase costs on everyday items from food to clothing.
So I sure hope that the president changes course. This is a high stakes game of chicken. But if we move forward with the tariffs, it's going to be utterly devastating to our economy and it will increase costs for everyday Americans.
HUNT: And finally, sir, I want to ask you about the deportation flights of alleged gang members. I know this has been a significant issue. The presence of this gang in Colorado.
Do you think the Trump administration did the right thing?
POLIS: Well, in what -- in what area? They're doing a lot of things at the same time.
HUNT: In using that act to deport those --
POLIS: Am I for deporting gang members and criminals? Absolutely.
You know, they had sufficient grounds to support them before that. You know, I'm not sure of the legal status of the new actions, but fundamentally, I'm for deporting violent gang members that can cause harm to Americans. They were doing that before. I don't know if they even needed this to help, because frankly, if you're violating our laws, you should be detained and deported.
HUNT: All right. Colorado Governor Jared Polis, thanks so much for being with us. I hope you'll come back soon.
POLIS: Always a pleasure.
HUNT: All right. Coming up next here, the most important election since the last election that you probably haven't heard about. And Elon Musk is getting involved with his super PAC now offering money directly to voters?
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[16:47:32]
HUNT: So you'd be forgiven for thinking that in 11 days, Wisconsin voters will be voting yay or nay on Elon Musk. It is actually a state Supreme Court race, a contest between two people you've probably never heard of, conservative Brad Schimel and liberal Susan Crawford. And despite what you saw in those new Democratic ads, Elon Musk is, of course, not on the ballot.
But it really does illuminate Democrats new strategy, casting the election as a referendum not on Trump, but on Musk. And Musk, naturally has noticed a group backed by the billionaire has dumped over $1 million into the race.
And last night, another Musk funded group offered $100 to Wisconsin voters if they sign a petition against, quote, activist judges.
So why is Musk so interested? Democrats claim that it's because Musk could have a Tesla lawsuit that appears before the state Supreme Court, a matter that Schimel was asked about last week.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
MODERATOR: If that case came before the court, would you recuse yourself?
BRAD SCHIMEL (R), WISCONSIN SUPREME COURT CANDIDATE: I don't know the answer to that. I haven't seen the lawsuit. I don't know.
I enforce the law and I respect the laws passed by the legislature.
I have no control over whatever any outside group does.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HUNT: All right. Our panel is back.
And joining the conversation is Alex Isenstadt, senior political reporter at "Axios" and the author of "Revenge".
Alex, thank you so much for being here.
ALEX ISENSTADT, SENIOR POLITICAL REPORTER, AXIOS: Thanks for having me.
HUNT: And let me start with you on this. I mean, I think this was a preview of what we're going to start to hear from Democrats. As you know, there are not a ton of elections in the year after a presidential. We'll get Virginia, New Jersey, and of course, this one has turned into this referendum.
What does it say that this is how Democrats are approaching it?
ISENSTADT: Well, they see Musk as an easier boogeyman to go after right now than Donald Trump, right? He is someone -- Musk is someone who hasn't been involved in politics before, to the same degree as Trump has. He's someone who's a new target. He's less defined in the -- in the public mind, and he's someone who Democrats see as kind of soft right now, kind of weak. And he's potentially easier to attach to Republican candidates than Trump is right now.
HUNT: Elliot, this lawsuit in question. So right after this lawsuit is filed, Musk posts this on X, January 23rd. Very important to vote Republican in the Wisconsin Supreme Court to prevent voting fraud.
And now there is this group that is talking about, you know, giving money to voters.
Can you help us understand what is legal and not legal about that, and what you think may be tied together here?
[16:50:04]
WILLIAMS: Any statement made by someone who is involved in litigation is inherently risky, and he has here and quite frankly, in other instances with the social media postings, actually tiptoed up to getting himself in trouble and also jeopardizing his own interests in court. I mean, the broad legal point is it is improper to purchase someone's
vote, right? You can't give someone something in exchange for their vote. Now it gets muddier when, so, for instance, in the context of a petition paying people to sign a petition, well, is that really paying off a vote? No, probably not, but there are muddy questions here.
But it's hard. It's a question of speech versus not wanting to tamper with the vote.
HUNT: Yeah.
URBAN: And I was going to say what Alex pointed out earlier, it's easier to go after Musk because Trump is pretty popular still, right? His you know, his numbers are pretty strong. Right track, wrong track we saw last week was an all time -- not an all time high, but a 20- year high.
HUNT: Much better than it has been in the past.
URBAN: Certainly much better it's been for the past 24 years. And so, you know, you take a poke at Donald Trump, you risk alienating somebody. And as Alex points out, you know, Musk is kind of ill- defined in Wisconsin. And so it's a little bit easier to attack him. He's not going to punch back as much.
You know, Donald Trump will punch back. And, you know, again, it's a state Supreme Court race. Like you said, people aren't -- it's really, really amazing it's getting that much more attention.
ALLISON: I actually will point out that the last three times this Wisconsin Supreme Court has had a race has always been -- well, it hasn't always been. The first time was when during Trump 1.0 and they were able to do a Democratic leading candidate. The next time they were also able to do a Democratic leading candidate. And then most recently, I think a year and a half ago, it was all about abortion.
These voters in Wisconsin are high information voters. And so they have a take on Elon Musk. And so this is like actually a really -- I don't think it is the national narrative we should be leaning in on, but it definitely is in Wisconsin, high information voters.
HUNT: And it's worth noting Wisconsin was the closest of the swing state.
ALLISON: Yes, as well.
URBAN: It's purple. It's a very purple state.
HUNT: Very, very purple state.
All right. Earlier, we asked our sources and friends, is Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, the future leader of the Democratic --
URBAN: I hope so.
HUNT: -- Party. David, we'll let you weigh in, in a second, because someone else said
the exact same thing. Here's what we heard.
One Democratic member of Congress wrote in: Kamala is not. If that is the question, AOC is changing and doing a great job. Jeffries probably is right now as the governors fight for '28, but they have to get tougher and stronger and in the game.
And a Republican strategist writes in echoing what David Urban just said, I sure hope AOC is the leader. She's obviously very smart, but also a self-proclaimed Marxist and doesn't represent the majority of this country.
Alex, this -- I mean, clearly there is a wing of the Democrats. I mean, I covered like, you know, dozens if not hundreds of Bernie Sanders rallies. I mean, there's a reason why these two people are popular, but it is potentially difficult to see how that becomes the mainstream of the country.
ISENSTADT: Yeah. So, where the Democratic Party is right now reminds me of where Republicans were after the 2008 election of Barack Obama, where Republicans really wanted the leadership of their party to fight back aggressively, and that's what Democrats want right now. They want the leadership of their party to fight back more aggressively than they have. And they see someone like AOC as that bomb thrower who could potentially do that.
HUNT: All right. Coming up here, a judges ruling on who did not steal Christmas. We'll explain.
Plus, this Sunday, a new episode of the "UNITED STATES OF SCANDAL WITH JAKE TAPPER" follows the Supreme Court nomination of Clarence Thomas and the subsequent Anita Hill scandal. Here's a little preview.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
JAKE TAPPER, CNN HOST, THE LEAD: In all of this, in the hearings in 1991, in the election of Bill Clinton, in all of it, there is this underlying acceptance that women are subordinate, can be treated differently, are -- are there for the pleasure of men. That's really what this is.
ANITA HILL, LAWYER: I honestly think that all of those women are to be believed. The public believes them. The question is, do they really care?
(END VIDEO CLIP)
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[16:69:02]
HUNT: All right. Welcome back.
Mariah Carey stealing Christmas? I'm sorry? What? Yes. The voice of one of the most successful Christmas songs ever had been accused of stealing it.
Today, a federal judge sided with Carey in a $20 million copyright lawsuit. The songwriter, Andy Stone, claimed that Carey copied from his 1980s song, also named "All I Want for Christmas Is You". We will let you hear and judge for yourself.
(MUSIC)
HUNT: I mean, come on.
URBAN: I'm not a judge, but --
HUNT: Come on.
URBAN: Mariah, she wins.
ALLISON: Yeah, yeah.
WILLIAMS: You don't -- you don't come after Mariah. But it's at least a lawsuit.
HUNT: And the judge did say that music experts could not prove enough similarity.
We're not music experts at this table, Jake Tapper. But I think that the verdict is in.
