Return to Transcripts main page
CNN's The Arena with Kasie Hunt
White House: Trump "Continues To Have Confidence" In National Security Team; Appeals Court Upholds Block On Trump's Use of Alien Enemies Act; Soon: Trump Announces Tariffs As White House Defends Texts On Attack Plans. Aired 4-5p ET
Aired March 26, 2025 - 16:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
[16:00:00]
JIMMY KIMMEL, TV HOST: Is that six extra shots or six totals in one cup of coffee?
PEDRO PASCAL, ACTOR: I cannot -- I cannot begin to tell you how violating this was.
KIMMEL: Yeah.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
ERICA HILL, CNN HOST: He says sipping one mega shot helps him with his productivity.
Thanks so much for joining us this afternoon.
Stay tuned. THE ARENA WITH KASIE HUNT starts right now.
(MUSIC)
KASIE HUNT, CNN HOST: It's the texts versus the spin.
Let's head into THE ARENA.
(MUSIC)
HUNT: Top Trump administration officials continuing to deny that classified war plans were detailed in their now infamous signal group chat, even as the actual messages have now been published by the journalist who was mistakenly looped into their discussion.
We'll get new reaction this hour from the vice chair of the Senate Intelligence Committee, Mark Warner, as Democrats demand accountability and flat out accuse some high-level officials of lying.
Plus, we are standing by for President Trump to escalate his trade war again by announcing new auto tariffs ahead of his original April 2nd deadline.
(MUSIC)
HUNT: Hi, everyone. I'm Kasie Hunt. It's wonderful to have you with us on this Tuesday. Welcome to THE ARENA.
And the third day of fallout from our nation's national security team group chat.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
KAROLINE LEAVITT, WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY: No classified material was sent on this messaging thread. This is an approved app. Goldberg is an anti-Trump hater. They're now playing word games. I would characterize this messaging thread as a policy discussion, that there were no war plans discussed. This was sensationalist spin.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HUNT: The White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt also telling reporters over and over again that the president has no new opinions about the Yemen attack plans, that his defense secretary shared on signal.
His opinions have not changed since yesterday, even after he read new ones released by "The Atlantic" this morning. A couple of hours before intelligence officials again faced lawmakers on Capitol Hill.
So, what did we learn from "The Atlantic"?
On March 15th, the day of the attack on Houthi targets in Yemen, the defense secretary, Pete Hegseth, posted a team update. He wrote this, quote: Weather is favorable. Just confirmed with CENTCOM. We are a go for mission launch. Then, he continues to outline times, weapons packages and targets.
At 2:15, additional F-18s are launched. Five minutes later, there are strikes on drone targets. Our strikes on -- drones on targets.
For emphasis, Hegseth writes in all caps: This is when the first bombs will definitely drop. He continues, there's a second strike. There are Tomahawks.
And then he ends this series of messages with this, quote: We are currently clean on OPSEC. That, of course, means operational security.
Yeah. Okay. So surprising no one, a U.S. defense official tells CNN that the details shared in the chat by Defense Secretary Hegseth were highly classified at the time he wrote the texts. Gee, you don't say.
Naturally, here was Hegseth again today.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
PETE HEGSETH, DEFENSE SECRETARY: Nobody's texting war plans. Theres no units, no locations, no routes, no flight paths, no sources, no methods, no classified information.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HUNT: On Capitol Hill, fellow members of the chat were pressed to answer for what went on. They toed a similar line.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TULSI GABBARD, DIRECTOR OF NATIONAL INTELLIGENCE: As the president and national security adviser stated, no classified information was shared.
JOHN RATCLIFFE, CIA DIRECTOR: Those messages were revealed today and revealed that I did not transmit classified information.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HUNT: I did not transmit classified information, the CIA chief says, and with the possible exception of the name of his chief of staff, which "The Atlantic" actually has continued to keep secret because the chief of staff is a CIA employee, and they keep those names secret. Ratcliffe does actually come out of this looking not as bad as Mike Waltz, who apparently is the one who added journalist Jeffrey Goldberg to the chat, and Pete Hegseth, who sent the information that they are claiming wasn't classified.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
GABBARD: Ultimately, the secretary of defense holds the authority to classify or declassify.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HUNT: So that's what they're telling us. Thats what they're telling the country. And the challenge here is whether, if any of this is plausible on its face. Here was one Democrat on the committee today.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
REP. JOAQUIN CASTRO (D-TX): The idea that this information if it was presented to our committee, would not be classified, we all know that's a lie. It's a lie to the country.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HUNT: So, here's the thing: I have stood outside countless classified meetings during the years that I was a reporter on Capitol Hill. You wait for the members to come out.
[16:05:01]
Many times, their personal phones have been collected. They've been left in little cubbies outside the room for security.
I have asked these members to tell me and the other reporters anything they learned about what's -- what was inside, what was said inside the meeting. And let me tell you, this is how it goes.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: And obviously, I'm not going to talk about the content of what went on in the classified briefing.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I'm not going to discuss what was said in a classified setting.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I can't go into that.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I can't really say anything about what happened in there.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Classified briefings, I can't talk about what we're talking about in there.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: No, I don't -- I don't want. It's classified.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HUNT: All those people you just saw there, by the way, Republican members of Congress.
All right. Our panel is here. CNN's special correspondent Jamie Gangel; Tara Palmeri, the author of "The Red Letter" on Substack; Xochitl Hinojosa, former DNC senior advisor; Scott Jennings, the former political director for Mitch McConnell.
And also joining us from Cambridge, Massachusetts, CNN political and national security analyst, David Sanger.
Thank you all very much for being here.
David, I actually do want to start with you, just to make sure that we fully have our heads around the information that was revealed this morning where Jeffrey Goldberg in particular, this this one text from Pete Hegseth seems to be really the linchpin of the whole situation. They are arguing and saying that "The Atlantic" changed from using the phrase war plans to using the phrase attack plans.
Hegseth is defending himself. You heard thereby saying precise locations were not included, names were not included, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera.
Is this in your considerable expertise as a longtime observer at real -- really member of the group of people who are involved in protecting our country from a national security perspective, is it plausible that this information was not classified at the time?
DAVID SANGER, CNN POLITICAL & NATIONAL SECURITY ANALYST: Kasie, it's not even remotely plausible. Try this thought experiment. Suppose this had had happened a different way, and that a reporter from a major newspaper, news organization had come to the Pentagon and said, we have this information about an attack that's going to take place at this hour, you know, in roughly this place against these kinds of targets. Not the full war plan, just the timeline.
Do you think the Pentagon would say you can't publish that at least until it's all over?
HUNT: Yes. Yes. They absolutely would. Yes.
SANGER: And then -- and you know, I've been through this experience many times with the war in Iraq, the war in Afghanistan. In fact, most news organizations, responsible ones, wouldn't even bother going to the Pentagon because we would not publish that kind of data. We might, after the attack was safely done and you weren't putting pilots at risk or warning the terrorist groups that they were about to get hit.
Look, we're journalists. We're usually on the other side of this. We're -- we're questioning why something is classified. This is the definition of the kind of data you would discuss only in the Situation Room.
And in fact, you would be hesitant to put it even on classified systems for fear that it might leak out. Much less put it on a commercial if very well encrypted app.
HUNT: So, Jamie Gangel, you obviously also have made your career largely in this space and spend a lot of your time speaking with intelligence officials. I want to remind everyone of what President Trump did say yesterday when he was asked about this, because I think it really demonstrates that, you know, the reporting today is that he actually didn't know what Signal was when this all happened. Had to be told he is not someone who is extraordinarily nimble with devices.
That makes sense. Okay. He's an older American, perhaps, and but he also speaks pretty openly about his preference for talking in person. And this is what he said about preferring there be lead walls around these kinds of conversations.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: If it was up to me, everybody would be sitting in a room together. The room would have solid lead walls and a lead ceiling and a lead floor. But, you know, life doesn't always let you do that.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HUNT: So, Jamie --
JAMIE GANGEL, CNN SPECIAL CORRESPONDENT: Yeah.
HUNT: -- honestly, it seems like he's probably right about this. Okay?
What have you been hearing in terms of, you know, as the administration has really -- I mean, they are using a tactic that they use over and over and over again in these types of situations, which is to attack the messenger.
And I want Tara to weigh in on that in a moment. But at the end of the day, lead us into -- I mean, the people you talk to are many of them are conservatives. How are they feeling about this right now?
GANGEL: So, first of all, this is why you have a Situation Room. This is why you have, you know, secure video conferencing. I've spoken to former -- the highest ranking intelligence officials, national security officials, military officials. There is equipment to do this. And it's not hard.
Scott can tell us. You could call the White House signal and they'll ask everyone in -- the White House signal, right.
[16:10:05]
It's a different. But that's what it's called, White House signal. And they would put you all together on a secure chat.
David Sanger, as always, is correct. You can downplay this, dance around it, attack Jeffrey Goldberg. But in the end, the texts are the texts. The timing is the timing.
You remember that old expression, you can put lipstick on a pig. This is what it is.
I want to read just two quotes from -- from former very high ranking national security officials who have reacted to this. One said, claims that this is not classified is B.S., but he used the real word. The second one said it was f-ing B.S. All said --
HUNT: It keeps escalating this --
GANGEL: Right. It -- all said, it potentially put our military in danger, life and death. And what each and everyone said was, why were they not using secure communication? It's not that hard.
HUNT: Well, and to that point, we also heard so this hearing again on the House side today, these intelligence officials, there's a routine hearing, prescheduled.
Jim Himes, who has served in top roles on the intelligence committee for many, many years, had this to say today.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
REP. JIM HIMES (D-CT): Everyone here knows that the Russians or the Chinese could have gotten all of that information, and they could have passed it on to the Houthis, who easily could have repositioned weapons and altered their plans to knock down planes or sink ships. I think that it's by the awesome grace of God that we are not mourning dead pilots right now.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HUNT: We should all, of course, say, thank God that that is not the case.
Scott Jennings, if Democrats had done this. I mean -- how is this defensible in the slightest, I don't understand.
SCOTT JENNINGS, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: Well, I think two things can be true. And it shouldn't be that hard to just say out loud, communications about this were not well-handled. It was a mistake. Mistakes lead to teachable moments.
And the presidents had hard conversations with the people who were involved in it, and he's quite certain that they've learned from this mistake. I mean, he said that. And so --
HUNT: Does it make sense to you that the president would be angry about this?
JENNINGS: Of course. Because it's detracting from the other thing that's true, which was this was a righteous hit. The president made a good decision reversing a bad policy from his predecessor. We hit the bad guys. We did what we were supposed to do.
The United States military once again proved it is the most ruthlessly lethal, efficient fighting force on Planet Earth. And we are making shipping safe again.
So, the military are fighting men and women and the bureaucracy that supports them did its job here. And we've been on the air for 12 minutes and 33 seconds, and I'm the first person to say the mission was a success.
But we spent all our time talking about the part that wasn't well handled. And it should not and will not happen again.
HUNT: Scott, do you do you think that this illustrates that Pete Hegseth does not understand the level of seriousness that his job requires?
JENNINGS: I know -- I don't believe that, and, you know, I haven't spoken to him and couldn't be inside of his mind on it. I mean, I believe the people on that chat, it seems to me, thought that they were in a bubble with each other and there were no outsiders on the chat.
And I also believe that they all believe that the Signal program was in use before and was okay to be used now, but that's -- that's in the past. Now you just have to make a decision now. What are we doing moving forward? And at some point, I'm sure the White House will say these programs are going away. Here's how we're going to handle this in the future. That's what they should do.
XOCHITL HINOJOSA, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: I don't think that they actually understand the severity of this. You had Marco Rubio go out and say, I spoke with the Pentagon. They said it wasn't classified. I spoke with the Pentagon. They said that military officials weren't put at risk.
The fact that the federal government cannot see that operational security plans are not classified, or that they don't believe that they are classified and that they don't believe that people were put at risk, just shows how they are not equipped to lead our country's military. And I think that's the scary part of it, something that should happen. And they keep on talking about a review within the White House.
I mean, it's unclear why Elon Musk is also doing a review of this.
HUNT: Well, because Mike Waltz is claiming that he doesn't know how the number ended up on there, right.
HINOJOSA: Well, and -- and that is a problem in itself, but I think that there needs to be a counterintelligence assessment. What the FBI normally does when I was at the Justice Department, they opened an investigation, normally with the sign off of the national security division, that not only is a criminal investigation.
HUNT: Criminal -- division of the DOJ, yes.
HINOJOSA: DOJ, which is not only a criminal investigation and putting that aside because they will never allow that, you at minimum do a counterintelligence assessment within the FBI, done by a career official.
But right now, all I've heard from the White House is its only political appointees who want to save and the president's reputation in looking at this, and there isn't a career official involved.
[16:15:03]
TARA PALMERI, AUTHOR, "THE RED LETTER" ON SUBSTACK: I have to say this cover up or, you know, the way they're handling it, this cleanup, it has become so messy. And it's like they're gaslighting the American people. They are smart enough to know that these are not the type of details that you would want in the public arena. They are top secret.
It doesn't matter whether they're called classified or not. The fact that you would not want them known means that they shouldn't be -- that they shouldn't be in the public arena, they shouldn't be communicated on an unsecure commercial app.
And I just think, like, people are smart enough to know that in the same way that the Biden administration was accused of gaslighting the American people by saying that Joe Biden wasn't old and that his faculties were great, you can't tell people what is clear as day, and they're going to -- and they're going to suffer politically for that if they don't realize that this messy cover up is going to bring them down.
HUNT: I mean, do you think, Scott, that there should be someone that pays a price for this, considering -- and I'm going to try to put this in a frame that, you know, if you're -- if you're thinking about this from -- from -- from the right side, like these people made Donald Trump look bad.
JENNINGS: I don't think anyone should lose their job. I do think Donald Trump should have difficult and hard conversations with his employees and say, this is not acceptable. And -- and this cannot be the norm going forward.
I'm sure he's mad about it. I would be mad about it if I were him, because I just made a great decision and should be getting a lot of plaudits for that. On this Signal business, by the way, I've heard from more than one Washington person in the last couple of days there, but for the grace of God go I. I think Signal is not carrier pigeons, okay? It is marketed as encrypted and more secure.
PALMERI: No, they just sent out -- and they sent out a message to their own troops in the DOD, which is just like their safety guidelines for communications. And they say do not use Signal because it has been penetrated by Russia. They tell their own troops.
JENNINGS: I know, but you and I -- you and I both know probably 90 percent of the people in our own phones use it.
HUNT: It's the best option available to those of us sitting at this table. There are better options available to the people that are doing things like flying F-18s and Tomahawk missiles.
Okay, up next, the vice chair of the Senate Intelligence Committee, Senator Mark Warner, will be live right here in THE ARENA.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SEN. MARK WARNER (D-VA): When are they going to find the willingness to step up and say this was wrong, people should be held accountable and people need to be fired or removed from their positions?
(END VIDEO CLIP)
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[16:21:41]
HUNT: Welcome back.
Breaking news in THE ARENA. Federal appeals court just upheld a lower court ruling temporarily blocking the Trump administration's deportation of Venezuelan immigrants. Migrants under the Alien Enemies Act.
CNN's Evan Perez is here with details.
Evan, what are we learning?
EVAN PEREZ, CNN SENIOR JUSTICE CORRESPONDENT: Well, this is a ruling from the three members of this appeals panel. And for now, what they're -- what they're allowing is this lower court ruling which blocked the president from using the Alien Enemies Act. This is a 19 -- 1798 law that is now only been invoked for the fourth time ever, and it was used to send some alleged members of the Tren de Aragua Venezuelan gang to that prison in El Salvador a couple of Saturdays ago.
Of course, the judge in that case had ruled for the planes to be turned back. The government went ahead and deported those people. And so now, this is now going to continue to work itself out in in the lower courts. But what's interesting here, Kasie, is that you have a panel. One, a
judge appointed by President Obama, one appointed by George W. Bush and one appointed by President Trump.
And this was a 2-1 ruling. They're allowing that -- that -- that stay that that hold on the president using this law to continue.
Justin Walker, who is the Trump appointee, he dissented from this. But really, on technical terms, he said, really, this case should be handled in a -- in a court in Texas, not here in the in Washington, D.C.
So at least for now, this, this, this block on President Trump using this law continues to hold -- Kasie.
HUNT: Evan, can I ask you what may happen next here? And how quickly do we expect whatever that is, to proceed?
PEREZ: Yeah. The judge is -- is -- has a number of things going on. One of the things he's still trying to determine, Kasie, is whether the -- and to explain why the government continued deporting those people, even though he had given a verbal order. So that's what's happening next. He's expected to rule certainly by early April, whether the government defied his order and what the consequences of that may be -- Kasie.
HUNT: All right. Evan Perez, for us with that breaking news -- Evan, thank you very much.
And I want to turn now to the vice chair of the Senate Intelligence Committee, Democratic Senator Mark Warner of Virginia.
Sir, I want to turn to the Signal questions in just a second. But first off, the top here, I just want to get your reaction at this news is that the U.S. Appeals Court has upheld the lower court ruling that the temporary block on the Trump administration's deportation of Venezuelan migrants under the alien -- the Alien Enemies Act is going to continue to stay in place.
Is that the right call?
WARNER: I think it is the right call. I think, you know, I fear even with that call, we could be headed to a constitutional crisis as this administration, you know, thinks it can intimidate judges and go against rulings. I'm glad to see that at least I believe this was at the appellate level, that the appellate level stuck to the rule of law and recognize, you know, we want to get rid of the bad guys. But if you've got legal status here, there is some due process you have to go through.
HUNT: All right, Senator, let's turn back to what -- of course, I know you have been focused on over the last 48 hours since we learned about this group chat, more than 48 hours now.
[16:25:11] And you heard what Trump administration officials have been saying across the board that there was no classified information that was in this chat. Are they lying to the American people?
WARNER: I don't think they're telling the truth. And it doesn't pass the smell test.
Let me give you the two pieces of this that are so obvious. The policy dispute between the vice president and the president and the back and forth, that's the kind of information that intelligence services, literally Russia or China, would kill for, having that kind of exposure to private conversations.
Second, but even more troubling, the idea that the specific plans of when an attack was going to be launched against the Houthis and the ramifications of that, there is no way in hell that that's not classified information. And anybody who denies that is either ignorant or trying to obfuscate.
And let me just bring it home. I mean, we've got -- the USS Truman is an aircraft carrier that's deployed in that region. It deploys from Norfolk, Virginia. We've had outreach from family members who say, my son or daughter is safe flying in that region.
If that information had been given to the Houthis and they could have turned their defensive mechanisms -- they have shot down American planes or drones in the past. You know, we could have had a tragedy here.
The mission in terms of the bombing was successful, granted. But the idea that we would put American soldiers in harm's way because this crowd was so careless and so sloppy that they didn't communicate this on a secure channel, is jaw dropping. And again, let's be clear, this is not the first time, two weeks into this administration, they inadvertently revealed the identities of about 200 new CIA agents. How are any of those agents going to be able to be posted abroad?
We've seen them -- the DOGE boys post a series of properties they thought the government should sell. Well, one of those happened to be a classified site.
HUNT: Yeah.
WARNER: Almost daily, there's information that leaks out either from ignorance or malfeasance from the DOGE guys that don't always make the news, but are about violating Americans privacy rights.
So, this administration's careless, sloppy towards classified and, frankly, Americans private information is rank incompetence.
HUNT: Sir, you, of course, have served in a very high at a very high level on the senate intelligence committee, as chairman, as vice chairman, there has been some reporting about recent notification to DOD employees that the Signal app had a vulnerability that was being exploited, potentially by adversaries. Is there anything you can share with us about whether that's true? Do
you think that our adversaries can exploit a vulnerability in this app?
WARNER: There is public reporting. I'm not going to talk about classified. There is public reporting that our adversaries, specifically Russia and China, are trying to go after encrypted apps like Signal and others, and there is clear guidance from the agency that you don't use this -- this application for classified or sensitive information.
And the plans of an attack on a hostile entity with specific times. That kind of information being released ahead of time or being exposed. Anybody that tries to defend that, I don't know what -- I don't know what planet they're living on. And it frankly insults the intelligence of the American public to say that.
And again, I'd point anybody who makes that case. Let's get some of the parents of the sailors on the USS Truman and see what they think about that kind of information.
HUNT: So, Senator, the White House press secretary today did invoke your name from the podium. I think we should be clear that they are leveling all sorts of criticism at people who have said that this was wrong, including, of course, the journalist Jeffrey Goldberg.
I want to show you what was said. I'm sure you've seen it. Our viewers may not have. I just want you to have the chance to respond to it.
Let's watch.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
KAROLINE LEAVITT, WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY: Here's just one example of how bad faith the Democrats criticisms are. Democrat Senator Mark Warner is hysterical over the use of Signal, which is an approved encrypted app in the killing of Houthi terrorists. But Senator Warner himself used Signal to work with a lobbyist for a Russian oligarch to connect with the -- to connect the disgraced Steele dossier author who started the Russia hoax, which Jeffrey Goldberg later reported on.
[16:30:06]
How ironic.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HUNT: What do you have to say to the White House press secretary?
WARNER: What I'd say is nothing in that conversation where I was contacted was classified.
And secondly, it kind of makes my case. If they've got copies of that communication, that proves in itself that Signal is not a safe way to transmit, you know, classified information. It is not a secure -- it's not a secure channel. So, I think they actually make them. Am I surprised that they're going like this? And let's see who else we
can blame? Or am I surprised that they didn't even have the people who testified yesterday didn't even have the basic decency to say, hey, colossal screw up here, we screwed up, but were going to do better.
They try to bull their way through, and on this one -- on this one, when you're going to have potential of American service members lives in harm's way, when you have. You know, I wish I could talk about the -- our partner countries around the world who are saying, god, we got to rethink this whole relationship with America. We're going to go from America first to America alone. And that makes us less safe.
And again, don't take my word for it. Look at the countries like Poland and Germany and Canada, rethinking buying our -- our jets. You know, Trump shut off some of our visibility from our commercial satellites, American commercial satellites going to get no more business because of the arbitrariness and the sloppiness of this administration.
So I'm not surprised at all. But, you know, we're going to stay on this because we've got we don't even have know if they've taken possession of the phones to make sure there's not malware on them.
HUNT: Really interesting.
Sir, quickly, before I let you go, you said today that it's, quote -- that it is clear that Gabbard, Tulsi Gabbard, and the CIA Director Ratcliffe lied to you about military specifics. Are you saying that they committed perjury and are there consequences? Should there be consequences for that?
WARNER: I went to law school but I'm not going to opine on legal decision. I know this. Go back and read the transcript, no classified information, no military plans, and look what came out today.
What I'm just amazed at is why they didn't even prep? Did they really think they could buffalo their way through this and obfuscate?
Again, it's a level of arrogance and incompetence that, frankly, is terrifying. And -- and is so -- why I'm so kind of upset is this puts our guys and gals in harm's way. This ruins our relationships around the world. And it is a continued pattern of sloppiness.
These are important positions. And this is why, for example, I voted against Gabbard and Hegseth. These are important positions. Youve got to take these jobs seriously.
And so far, I sure as heck don't regret those negative votes on those folks.
HUNT: All right. Senator Mark Warner, very grateful for your time today, sir. Thanks very much for being here. Hope you come back.
WARNER: Thank you
HUNT: All right. Coming up next here, a lawsuit now filed in federal court over the group text -- the details of what's being alleged and how the administration plans to respond.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[16:37:55]
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
REP. JIM HIMES (D-CT): The defenders of this outrageous act are saying, well, they said it wasn't classified. Well guess what? To be in violation of the Espionage Act, stuff doesn't need to be classified.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HUNT: So did Trump administration officials violate the Espionage Act, the Federal Records Act or even the Intelligence Identities Protection Act, which protects the identity of a covert agent?
Well, it does appear that this won't be investigated by the DOJ or FBI anytime soon. The Trump administration is now facing the first lawsuit stemming from the scandal. It accuses officials of violating the federal records law.
This case has been assigned to Judge James Boasberg. You may know that name. He is also overseeing the deportation case involving Trump's use of the Alien Enemies Act. We covered the breaking news on that earlier in this hour.
CNN senior legal analyst Elie Honig joins us now.
Elie, let's talk a little bit about this lawsuit. I mean, you point out and here's a little bit of your latest article for "New York Magazine". And you argue Pam Bondi, the attorney general is MIA.
Quote, under the halting, distracted leadership of Attorney General Pam Bondi, the Justice Department has made no mention thus far of the signal scandal, which dominated headlines all week. Yet I feel confident predicting that the Justice Department won't lift a finger to investigate this mess.
It does seem clear that what you say is true there. So what recourse is there for people who feel someone should be held accountable?
ELIE HONIG, CNN SENIOR LEGAL ANALYST: Well, if you were talking about criminal accountability, and I'm not saying to be clear, that there has definitely been a crime, but I think at a minimum, there needs to be an investigation here. If we look back through recent history, every attorney general has initiated some investigation that the president may not have liked. It's the very essence of the job of the AG sometimes to exercise independence and to do things that may not be popular with the administration.
Go back to Janet Reno under the Bill Clinton era. She launched a series of investigations that dogged Bill Clinton throughout his presidency, much to his dismay.
Same thing held true during the Bush administration, Obama administration, Trump, Biden, all the way on through.
[16:40:04]
So, Pam Bondi has been MIA. There is no indication that she's going to open an investigation here. And by the way, when she was up for a confirmation as AG, you remember, one of the concerns is would she be able to exercise independence? She told the Senate, absolutely. I will be completely independent.
Theres no reasonable prosecutor who could look at this and say it doesn't even need to be investigated.
HUNT: Yeah. Well, so, Scott Jennings, to this point, I again find it implausible on its face that if this were reversed and there was a situation where you had a Democrat in the White House, Republicans wouldn't also be calling for whoever was the attorney general at the time to investigate this.
JENNINGS: I don't really have a problem with an investigation. I'm not sure what form it should take, because I do think they need to understand how it happened and what were the particulars, and how to avoid it happening in the future. I'm very, very suspect that -- I mean, don't you have to show any like, gross negligence on these matters? I'm very suspect that that that that that would be the case here.
But it doesn't strike me that it would be wrong to necessarily get to the bottom of it, which is, you know, I think a good course of action.
HUNT: I mean, when we compare this to what, and, Elie, let me actually go to you on this one, and I want Scott to kind of weigh in on the politics, because we saw James Comey investigate Hillary Clinton for something that was, you know, having classified information on something that where it wasn't supposed to be. And I mean, if you ask her and her team, they will tell you that they think she lost a presidential campaign over it.
HONIG: Yeah. So, Scott is exactly right. The key legal question here is, was there gross negligence?
I should say this is an unusual law because most laws require intentionality. But in this case, relating to the handling of classified or sensitive information, the key question is, was there gross negligence? And it's worth mentioning not only was Hillary Clinton investigated for a matter of years by DOJ and the FBI, so too was Donald Trump by a special counsel. He got indicted for it. So too, is Joe Biden by a special counsel.
So, the precedent, if we look at recent history again, both parties is at an absolute minimum. If you're the United States Justice Department, if you're the attorney general, you have to at least dig in and take a look.
And look, Scott, I think we agree there needs to be some meaningful inquiry here. I know there's been some rumblings out there that maybe Mike Waltz or Elon Musk is going to look into this. I guess that's fine, but they're not going to do the same job that the Justice Department is going to do, and they don't have the ability to deliver consequences like the U.S. Justice Department has.
HUNT: One, Tara Palmieri -- I mean, the idea that Pam Bondi is going to look into this --
PALMIERI: No.
HUNT: -- also seems -- we -- I keep using the word implausible.
PALMIERI: Right, and also, you should probably get a special counsel on it, right, to have some sort of separation between you and the administration, offers more -- you know, it really does offer, I guess, more credibility. But this administration does not like special counsels, witch hunt, witch hunt, witch hunt.
But like that would really be the best way to get down to the bottom of it.
GANGEL: The chances, I think, are slim to none.
PALMIERI: Yeah.
GANGEL: The notion that Mike Waltz might be the person to investigate this seems just incredible to me, since he was in in the middle of it.
HINOJOSA: Well, I think the other problem is that the administration prepared for something like this in the sense that they don't want to be investigated, they want to ensure that no one in the administration is investigated. What do they do? They review -- they remove the IGs from various agencies, including the Pentagon. That is, who would look into exactly what happened. That person is independent, is career.
They removed the -- in the national security division of the Justice Department, the person -- the senior career prosecutor George Toscas, who would be investigating the use and the mishandling of classified information. They removed top career people within the FBI who would go to the National Security Division and say, hey, you know what? This is interesting. We need -- there's something here. We need to open an investigation.
They have removed any sort of independence within the Justice Department and within the federal government, so that there is no one to investigate. Elie is right. There should be an investigation, and it needs to happen from by a career official and an FBI career official who understands not only what the counterintelligence aspect of this is, but understands the law and understands whether to see whether a crime was committed.
JENNINGS: Look, I guess I'm more interested in immediate operational details of how they're going to handle it today, tomorrow.
HUNT: To make sure that our people overseas are okay?
JENNINGS: But you're interested in throwing them in jail. I'm interested in just making sure -- HINOJOSA: I'm interested in throwing them in jail. I want people to be
safe, and I want to make sure that our military doesn't die from another potential leak like this.
JENNINGS: I'm sorry. Nobody died from this, A. B --
HINOJOSA: They were put at risk. They were absolutely put at risk. CNN sources will say that.
JENNINGS: I mean, how many, how many, how much accountability was meted out upon the previous administration when people did actually die? Zero.
But on this issue of an investigation, there's plenty of people in the White House. Waltz has to be involved because he's the national security advisor, and he is operationally in the middle of it. The White House counsel has people that look into things internally when situations like this occur, that they're absolutely, appropriately installed to look into matters because the White House and the president needs to know, not six months from now, immediately, what did you do to fix this, so you don't do it again?
[16:45:10]
HINOJOSA: But they also need to check. And I think Warner said it -- said it right, which you also need to check to see whether or not there's malware on these phones and these -- that's -- the White House can't do that. It is the FBI who does that.
PALMIERI: The messaging is already nothing happened, nothing to see here. So how are they going to be accountable when they don't think it's a big deal in the first place?
HUNT: Yeah. Fair enough.
All right. Elie Honig, thanks for being here two days in a row. Come back soon, my friend. See you soon.
All right. Up next, President Trump set to announce new tariffs on cars as stocks slide over the uncertainty of his plan.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[16:50:03]
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TRUMP: We have liberation day in America. That's where we take back all of this money that's been ripped off from us for so many decades, and we start a process. We're going to go with the tariffs on cars.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HUNT: All right. So, any minute now the president is set to announce new tariffs on cars. It comes after Trump promised a one-month reprieve for his 25 percent tariffs on goods coming from Canada and Mexico. But that is set to expire next Wednesday.
Scott Jennings, you apparently recently bought a new car. I learned in the break.
GANGEL: An EV, electric vehicle. Are we, like, giving something away by saying that, like?
JENNINGS: I don't -- I don't broadcast my consumer habits. Yeah, I did. I did buy a new car.
HUNT: But the car that you bought is one that's made by General Motors, which is a, you know, a long-standing American company that has -- honestly, been one of our great. Now, I'm a little bit biased. My I had a -- my grandfather worked for General Motors for many, many years. My -- I've got a lot of family in Detroit. So, it's actually very close to my -- my heart personally.
These tariffs on cars. These auto CEOs like there is a reason why they are extraordinarily upset about this. Why is the president doing this to American companies?
JENNINGS: Well, you know, I don't have the details of it yet. I haven't seen what he's doing, but I think -- I mean, I think he believes, like with all the tariffs, that ultimately this policy, if enacted over a long period of time, will drive more manufacturing back into the United States. So, whether you're an American company or not, if you've got stuff being made over in other countries, he wants that to be brought back here. That's number one.
Number two, even though the executives may not be happy, I'll tell you who is happy, I think, is the United Auto Workers and the people you know who represent the -- the working men and women who exist in these factories. They've been very supportive of these ideas.
HUNT: I think the challenge is if the companies suffer, ultimately jobs are going to be lost.
JENNINGS: Well, we'll see if they do. I'm not sure that's true yet. We'll see. I mean, the way you don't suffer in private economy is make a good product.
HUNT: Tara Palmieri, what is your sense here? I mean, there was -- there was a quote yesterday that we -- we had on the show of someone who basically said, you got to stop talking about the tariffs like the -- it was in the context of consumer confidence basically falling off a cliff to the lowest level since the COVID pandemic. I think we all remember like how -- how happy we were not in that period. Like that's how people are feeling about the economy right now.
Thats clearly not how the White House sees it. Why?
PALMIERI: I don't know, because the economy is such an emotional thing. It's not really based on anything. It's based on a feeling. And so, the president is supposed --
HUNT: What did -- what did Maynard Keynes call it, animal spirits, I think?
PALMIERI: Yeah.
(LAUGHTER)
PALMIERI: The president is supposed to, you know, project a feeling of confidence. And in fact, in the first administration, you remember this, Trump would say that's the -- that's the Trump stock market. Thats because of my policies. He would take credit for everything.
Now, he's a lover of tariffs like his entire life. He's an old school guy who's long believed that tariffs would, you know, make money for the economy and bring jobs back. The problem is, is that all of these companies are stalled. They're in a wait and see, like they think, okay, should I gas -- pedal gas? I don't know what to do.
And then the other thing is that, like, consumers are just sort of like what's going to happen? Should I keep my car. Should I buy -- like should I buy another one? What is -- what is happening?
So he's got us all stalled, essentially. And I think that's -- that's not great for the economy. And also, how are you going to bring all these jobs back here? It takes like ten years to develop all that kind of manufacturing.
JENNINGS: That's true. It is a long -- it's a long term play.
PALMIERI: Yeah.
JENNINGS: Tariffs. You know, the stuff that's going to happen with Congress on making tax cuts permanent for workers. I mean, this is all a long-term plan. It's not a six-week idea. It's not a ten-second fix.
They are remaking the economy to be more private sector-focused, less government-focused.
PALMIERI: The economy just rebounded basically. We were close to a recession. We just rebounded after COVID. Is this really like -- do you really want to stress test the economy right now?
JENNINGS: Well, rebounded because they -- because they would say so much money was flowing through the government. They want it flowing through the private.
HUNT: Let's -- let's ask Republican members of Congress and perhaps the speaker, Mike Johnson, how he feels about it here in two years or so, Scott.
JENNINGS: It's true.
HUNT: All right. Coming up next, something totally different. What's new is old again. We'll explain.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[16:59:01] (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Oh my God. I just want to say that this was the best Dundies ever. Whoo!
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Whoa, whoa. Whoa! Terrible.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: We have a strict policy here not to overserve. Apparently, this young woman was sneaking drinks off other people's tables. I xeroxed her driver's license, and she is not welcome at this restaurant chain ever again.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HUNT: Those of us of a certain age all remember that scene, right? That was Pam getting kicked out of Chili's in "The Office". Well, now she might have a chance to go back. I'm sorry. What?
Two decades after that famous episode, Chili's is finally, finally opening a location in Scranton. It opens next month, and it will look just like 2005, complete with old signs, chalkboard art, tile tables, and bringing back famous menu items for a Scranton only exclusive.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Awesome blossoms are back.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Back.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: As in I want my baby back, baby back, baby back, baby back, baby back, baby back, baby back. I want my chili's baby back ribs.
(END VIDEO CLIP)(
HUNT: There is no word on if Pam is still banned after having one too many at Dunder Mifflin's annual awards ceremony, known as the Dundies.
JENNINGS: Chili's is the new golf course.
HUNT: Right.
JENNINGS: That's what they say.
HUNT: That's what they say.
JENNINGS: Where business is down. I'm just saying, where business is done.
HUNT: Thanks, guys.
And thanks to all of you for being with us as well.
"THE LEAD" with Phil Mattingly starts right now.
