Return to Transcripts main page
CNN's The Arena with Kasie Hunt
Just In: Trump Says He Decided To Give Iran Two Weeks To See If "People Come To Their Senses"; Khalil To Be Released; Democratic Rep. James Clyburn Backs Cuomo For NYC Mayor. Aired 4-5p ET
Aired June 20, 2025 - 16:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
[16:00:23]
KASIE HUNT, CNN HOST: It's diplomacy versus the clock. Is Donald Trump's two-week deadline a window for negotiations?
Let's head into THE ARENA.
Right now, new comments from the president on the conflict between Israel and Iran, addressing his two-week timeline and again splitting from the U.S. intelligence community and assessment. I'll speak with the top Democrat on the House Armed Services Committee, Representative Adam Smith.
Plus, at any moment, a Palestinian activist detained by ICE set to be released. Coming up, why a judge is setting Mahmoud Khalil free after more than three months in federal custody.
And then, Andrew Cuomo picks up something of a surprise endorsement in the race to be the next mayor of New York. Why a key South Carolina Democrat backing the former governor?
(MUSIC)
HUNT: Hi, everyone. I'm Kasie Hunt. Welcome to THE ARENA. Happy Friday. It's the end of a very long week. I don't know if you feel the same way I do.
The first face to face meeting of western and Iranian diplomats just wrapped up in Geneva perhaps it comes as no surprise that Donald Trump is not impressed.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
REPORTER: Did the Europeans help at all in talking with the Iranians?
DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: No, that didn't help. No. Iran doesn't want to speak to Europe. They want to speak to us. Europe is not going to be able to help on this one. It's very hard to stop when you look at it.
Israel is doing well in terms of war. And I think you would say that Iran is doing less well. It's a little bit hard to get somebody to stop.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HUNT: So ahead of the talks today, one diplomat called this moment a window for diplomacy after President Trump set that big two week deadline yesterday, the U.S., though, is not involved in these talks, nor is Israel. And as the president underscored right there, the fighting continues to go on. At least 23 people injured by Iranian strikes across Israel today.
This was Israel's foreign minister speaking to CNN from the site of one of those attacks.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
GIDEON SA'AR, ISRAELI FOREIGN MINISTER: I was always skeptical with regard to diplomatic talks with the Iranians because they are misleading. And even until now, we hadn't heard anything from them, which hints they want to change direction. And they are even close to the American demands.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HUNT: All right. Our panel is here. They're going to weigh in.
We're going to start with CNN's senior White House correspondent Kristen Holmes, and CNN chief global affairs correspondent Matthew Chance, who is in Geneva in Switzerland.
Kristen, I want to start with you, because the president just landed in New Jersey a few minutes ago. He spent quite a bit of time talking to reporters. It struck me that he was very reluctant to say that Israel should stop doing what they're doing. And of course, that's some interesting context, considering he said he's going to make his big decision within the next two weeks.
KRISTEN HOLMES, CNN SENIOR WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: Yeah. And one of the things he was responding to was the fact that the Iranian foreign minister said today that it would take nothing but a phone call from President Trump to Benjamin Netanyahu to put this this back and forth, this missile exchange to arrest so that there could be diplomatic talks. And when he was asked if he would be willing to do that, he essentially said no, because he said that the prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, it's hard to tell him no, you have to stop when you're winning the war.
So that was an interesting point of context there. Now, the other thing that I want to point out to is something you just mentioned was his disillusionment. It sounded like with the European talks, first of all, that's not the readout that we got from that meeting. Iranians came out of it saying that they were more welcome and more interested in a diplomatic solution because of that sit down.
And the other part of that is that the United States is incredibly invested in those talks that just happened between these European leaders and Iran, to the point where Steve Witkoff, the Middle East envoy, was meeting with the United Kingdom foreign minister yesterday ahead of him traveling to Geneva for those talks. They've been in constant contact about what a diplomatic solution would look like.
So not surprising that President Trump would get out there and insult them, but also a little bit, it seems, off message from what the White House was saying and how they were interacting with these foreign ministers.
Now, the other part of this is he was asked why two weeks? What do you think is going to happen in two weeks? And this is what he said.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
REPORTER: What's the thought process behind two-week timeframe?
[16:05:01]
TRUMP: Just a time to see whether or not people come to their senses.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HOLMES: We also asked for reporters, excuse me, on the ground, also asked questions about what would happen at the end of two weeks. He said two weeks was a max, but he wouldn't really get into what exactly is going to play out over that time frame. And then just as you mentioned, because this is something we have been reporting, is Donald Trump's lack of confidence in his own intelligence community, and particularly thinking that his director of national intelligence, Tulsi Gabbard, is off message.
He said that today, when asked specifically about her march testimony, in which she said that they believe the intelligence community that Iran was not near to developing a nuclear weapon. And he flat out said she is wrong, and my guess my intelligence community is wrong as well.
HUNT: Right. No, it's pretty, pretty remarkable split there.
Matthew Chance, you, of course, have been covering those talks between Iran's foreign minister and his European counterparts. As we -- as we've noted, the Israelis, the Americans not part of those conversations. What did we hear from them today? And how do you think that's going to shape what happens next?
MATTHEW CHANCE, CNN CHIEF GLOBAL AFFAIRS CORRESPONDENT: It's interesting to hear what you guys are talking about because, you know, actually, David Lammy, who's the British foreign secretary, basically flew directly from Washington to these talks in Geneva to deliver a straightforward message. And, you know, I've spoken to diplomats and officials who are inside these talks here in Geneva that have now, sort of, sort of come to an end. And, and those officials tell me that, look, you know, that message was delivered directly to the Iranians by, you know, the U.K. and other delegations as well, basically saying a couple of things.
Firstly, there would be no deal with the United States unless there was an end to all uranium enrichment by Iran. And that's problematic in itself because the Iranians have said publicly that that's a red line. They reiterated that to me earlier today as well, diplomats inside the inside the meeting.
The second message that was delivered from Washington to the Iranians is that Washington wants direct talks between Iran and the United States and the Iranians, sort of like said in this meeting. Look, we're not going to do that so long as Israel continues to bomb to bomb Iran.
You know, but at the end of it, you know, both sides sort of broke up with these talks, agreeing to go back to their various capitals to see whether there could be influence brought to bear by the United States on Israel, to suspend or pause its military campaign. And by the Iranians to see if they would agree to a pause as well. If both of those things happen. And of course, it's a big if, then there is a possibility, if there's one positive out of this, there is a possibility there could in the future be direct talks between the United States and Iran, Kasie.
HUNT: And if for sure, although you can also see, Matthew in what you laid out, just how these things end up getting escalated, because each side digs in, can't back down from the position that they have and are don't really have anywhere to go.
Kristen Holmes, Matthew Chance, grateful for both of you. Thank you very much for being there.
Our panel is here. CNN contributor, "New York Times" journalist and podcast host, Lulu Garcia-Navarro, the host of "The Chuck Toddcast". Chuck Todd, former Democratic congressman from South Carolina, Joe Cunningham, bringing the Friday style today, and CNN political commentator and Republican strategist Shermichael Singleton.
Thank you all very much for being here.
CHUCK TODD, HOST OF "THE CHUCK TODDCAST": Making sure, Michael and I --
(CROSSTALK)
TODD: We're just a couple of plain guys, I went gray, you went black.
LULU GARCIA-NAVARRO, CNN CONTRIBUTOR: I feel insulted personally. I like my shirt.
HUNT: You always bring the style. I have to say.
JOE CUNNINGHAM (D), FORMER SOUTH CAROLINA CONGRESSMAN: It's all the substance I can add here. That's it. That's all the substance. You got great hair, fashion advice.
HUNT: Chuck Todd, I -- let's -- this is a big moment for President Trump. And in fact, he was asked about that, whether this was going to be the biggest decision that he has made. He couldn't really answer the question. He said, ask him again. In a year or five years. Kristen Holmes was mentioning what he said about his intelligence community in that assessment. I want to play what he said and we'll talk about it.
Take a look.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
REPORTER: What intelligence do you have that Iran is building a nuclear weapon? Your intelligence community has said they have no evidence that they are at this point.
TRUMP: Well, then my intelligence community is wrong. Who in the intelligence community said that?
REPORTER: Your director of national intelligence, Tulsi Gabbard.
TRUMP: She's wrong chuck.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HUNT: Chuck, I mean, it is very difficult not to flash back to run up to the Iraq war, and the fight over the intelligence, because right now, that's exactly what we have. The president of the United States disagreeing with his intelligence community about the information that he has and how he's going to use that to make decisions. What does it tell you?
TODD: Well, look, the economist had a pretty good scoop about what it was. What did Israel have, what new intelligence, actionable intelligence that they've been sharing. And it's the Israelis seem to have gotten some indication that there is at least an attempt by the Iranians to try to at least have a team ready to speed up the building of a nuke.
But it's, you know, this is -- I felt the same way. You're like, wait a minute, we've been here before where our folks looking for the intelligence that makes them feel better about the decision, rather than just simply assessing the intelligence.
[16:10:04]
Look, there's a couple of things here that I've gotten some indication from some folks I've talked to that what he's waiting for is assurance that the bomb will work. And, you know, because if you do this, he does not he -- if he acts, he does not want it to be a long-term thing, right? He wants it to be like it's a -- it's an in and out.
HUNT: We're talking like --
TODD: Yeah, good luck with that.
HUNT: The first Gulf War.
TODD: That's right.
HUNT: Not the Iraq invasion.
TODD: That's right. Or think Lib -- the way Donald Trump thinks is think Libya in 1983, right? Like meaning like he wants that kind of, you know -- HUNT: You always have to go back.
GARCIA-NAVARRO: The killing of Qasem Soleimani.
HUNT: Right.
GARCIA-NAVARRO: You know, you come in with a drone.
TODD: Right.
GARCIA-NAVARRO: You know, and people cheer.
TODD: He's not been reassured that these bombs are going to work. Because what happens if you drop it and it doesn't work and it doesn't take it out right then, then that's a problem.
Look, you know why he picked this? Says two weeks, two weeks. We know this. It's a crutch. When he's not ready to make a decision, he throws it out two weeks because he's hoping maybe the facts change, maybe things on the ground change.
Now, this puts a deadline on Israel. You know, their defenses are going to -- are going to continue to weaken. There's only so much of these missiles they can keep knocking down to have to drag this out another two weeks is not something they're looking forward to.
Is this an attempt by the president to say, okay, Israel, you have two weeks to maybe sneak in a commando unit and try to blow it up from the inside? You know, I think he's hoping the facts on the ground change before he --
GARCIA-NAVARRO: But there is something here -- there's something that is happening in Israel, which is since October 7th, what we have seen is a completely changed Middle East. The reason that Israel is able to do what it's doing is because it took out Syria. It took out Hezbollah in Lebanon. It took out Hamas.
TODD: All of Iran's front line.
GARCIA-NAVARRO: All of Iran's front line and its proxies.
(CROSSTALK)
GARCIA-NAVARRO: And this is the -- this -- but with the aim all of this, this is the dream of actually taking out the Iranian regime and its nuclear capabilities. And it is as close as it's ever been in my lifetime to achieving that. So, I actually think that it is going to be very difficult to roll this back.
HUNT: So, one of the other things that the president was asked about, and this is -- this came in just right before we came on the air. So, I want to show you a little bit of what the president just said a few minutes ago about the Iraq war and some of these comparisons that we have been talking about, because it's clearly looming large for so many of the officials that are making decisions right now. Let's take a look. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TRUMP: I was very much opposed to Iraq. I was I said it loud and clear, but I was a civilian. But I guess I got a lot of publicity, but I was very much opposed to the Iraq war, and I actually did say, don't go in, don't go in, don't go in. But I said, if you're going to go in, keep the oil. But they didn't do that.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HUNT: So worth noting that that is fact check false. Donald Trump at the time very clearly did support the Iraq war eventually, with, you, many others. He eventually changed his opinion. But I play that congressman, because when we were talking about this on set yesterday, right. And Peggy Moonan writes it this way, under the headline, Iraq's shadow over the Iran debate.
And she writes this, quote, the fiery Tucker Carlson interview with Senator Ted Cruz is the perfect distillation of the split among conservatives on Iran. That split is all about the unhealed wound of Iraq. The arguing between Republicans was bitter, though it was largely suspended when the war commenced. When it began to go sideways, the argument began again, and it's never been resolved.
By 2010, Republicans on the ground were saying the war is originators hadn't known anything about Iraq. Twenty-two years after the beginning of that war, it continues to have profound repercussions on American thinking about the world.
And, of course, you're seeing a number of Republicans sound a lot like Democrats in Congress in how they -- they talk about this. And that does seem to be front of mind for the president right now.
CUNNINGHAM: I mean, the saying politics makes strange bedfellows comes to mind because you see the type of people on the left and on the right who are coming out saying, let's pump the brakes here. You know, it is a different situation, right? I'll admit that. But one of the different dynamics is obviously the intelligence has to be on the same page, right? You know, we saw that with Iraq and the and it's not.
And also, you know, Iraq was coming off of the heels of 9/11, which, you know, led to public support for Afghanistan and to a lesser extent, Iraq, but still. Intelligence failure, but still. Yeah, but still some -- some public support, now, like this is so fresh in everyone's minds. I mean, we just -- we just stopped these wars.
And so, to ramp back up, you're seeing a meshing of some factions within the Democrat and Republican Party that we didn't anticipate to see.
HUNT: Shermichael, this is, of course, your party, oftentimes when we're having these conversations around this table, your party is united behind Donald Trump and the fractures are elsewhere, but not -- but you're right, not on this. And of course, one of the dynamics here is that the Israelis, for several days all but expected Donald Trump to strike with American force. [16:15:09]
And then that suddenly seemed to get walked back. I mean, how do you think this gets resolved?
SHERMICHAEL SINGLETON, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: I think for a lot of the reasons the congressman just stated, it's a cost. A lot of Americans are asking, can we actually afford this? $36 -- $37 trillion in debt? Most would say, absolutely not.
I think the second argument you would hear from some of the presidents most ardent supporters, this isn't in sync with your message that you campaigned on of America first, meaning you're avoiding foreign conflicts. Now, look, I think there is something to be considered from the president's perspective in terms of Iran having a nuclear weapon.
Do we want to set an arms race in the Middle East? Do we want to run the risk of nuclear proliferation? And you having proxy groups getting their hands on dirty bombs and attempting to explode those weapons in cities and countries in the west? That's a very legitimate and valid concern.
But I do beg the question. The international atomic energy agency had a report that came out a week or two ago that suggested Iran has indeed progressed in its enrichment of uranium. Theres still a couple years away from having a full nuclear weapon, or at least a capability to put that on a warhead. And so, if that is indeed the case, I think the president is smart to say, wait a minute here, let's wait a couple of weeks, at least two. Let's try to see if the E3 can negotiate a bit more.
Let's see if we'll consider negotiations with Iran to at least have them pause the program, allow those individuals to go back and see whether they are in terms of progression, and then make an ultimate decision from there.
HUNT: All right. Well, we'll see if this is two weeks where we actually get a decision or, you know, two weeks. I think we've been waiting for a resolution for Ukraine and Russia for two weeks since April?
TODD: The health care plan back in the first term was two weeks away. It's always two weeks.
CUNNINGHAM: It's new checks in the mail. Yeah.
HUNT: All right. Coming up here, one Democrat known for his successful political endorsements makes a pick in a race that's been dividing the party.
Plus, the top Democrat on the Armed Services Committee will be here with his thoughts on what should be done to avoid a major war in the Middle East. Congressman Adam Smith, standing by live.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) JIMMY KIMMEL, TV HOST: For a guy whose catchphrase was, "you're fired!", no one has ever given more two weeks' notice than Donald J. Trump.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[16:21:38]
HUNT: All right. Welcome back.
Joining me now live in THE ARENA to discuss the president's latest comments on Iran, Congressman Adam Smith of Washington state. He is the top Democrat on the House Armed Services Committee and, of course, served as the chairman of that committee for a number of years.
Congressman, thanks very much for being with us.
I do want to start with what we just heard from President Trump, who, of course, has set this two-week deadline to decide whether the United States should become involved, should use force in the conflict between Iran and Israel. And the president made some noteworthy comments about what we know about whether or not the Iranians were accelerating their timeline for making a bomb, essentially.
Let's listen to what the president said, and we'll talk about it on the other side. Take a look.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
REPORTER: What intelligence you have that Iran is building a nuclear weapon? Your intelligence community has said they have no evidence that they are at this point.
TRUMP: Well, then my intelligence community is wrong. Who in the intelligence community said that?
REPORTER: Your director of national intelligence, Tulsi Gabbard.
TRUMP: She's wrong.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HUNT: Congressman, can you offer us any insight about whether she is wrong and what we know and why the president is saying this?
REP. ADAM SMITH (D-WA): Well, we're kind of talking past each other here. I think the general assessment of the intelligence community that is accurate is that Iran has not made the decision to affirmatively build a nuclear bomb, yet what they have been doing is rapidly putting themselves closer and closer to the point where once they make that decision, they can get a bomb. The intelligence shows clearly that they have ramped up the enrichment of uranium of 60 percent, and there's no civilian use when you're enriching uranium at that point. If you're enriching uranium above 60 percent, the only use for it is
to eventually put it into a bomb. No question, Iran has ramped that up. But the nuance sort of escaped the president, as it often does, that Iran has not decided to build a nuclear weapon, but they're definitely getting closer to it. And therefore, the threat of them getting a bomb. I mean, the breakout period could be a matter of days at some point from when they make that decision.
HUNT: So, you've been fairly clear that doing something like this intervention would risk a broader war. You're opposed to that? I want to talk about that in a second. But I'm interested in your assessment. As someone who knows a lot about our military capability in the role that you have, one question has been whether using these bunker buster bombs to hit Fordow, the nuclear sites that are deep in the mountains, as the Israelis seem to want the United States to do, would actually work, and that there have been questions raised about whether the president is confident that they would work.
What do you think? If we were to use these bombs, would they work as we would intend them to work?
SMITH: I'm highly skeptical because first of all, what do you mean by work? What people want is they want a situation where military efforts make it impossible for Iran to build a bomb, or, at a minimum, make it so it would take years for them to build a bomb. I am not confident that any military action that we could take in terms of dropping bombs would have that effect.
First of all, how successful it could be on -- I don't know how to pronounce it -- but Fordow mountain is debatable. You never know until the strike hits. How many centrifuges contained in that mountain could you possibly destroy? There are estimates that Iran has upwards close to 20,000 centrifuges in different places.
[16:25:01]
So how many could you truly destroy? And second, we don't know whether or not they have centrifuges elsewhere. We didn't know about this mountain for a while. While they had them there.
So, I have low confidence that a military campaign could significantly set back Iran's decision to make a bomb. You know, the war ends. They go back to making centrifuges, they go back to enriching uranium, which is why negotiation is so important. If the ultimate goal is to stop Iran from being able to reasonably quickly build a bomb by reasonably quickly, you know, months, as opposed to really pushing them back.
So, no, I do not think from what I've seen, that those military action that is going to significantly reduce Iran's ability. Well, like I said, you know, not put them in the pack where they're a decade away. It's just they're too far down the road at this point.
HUNT: Do you think that the Israeli prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, jammed the United States, jammed President Trump in taking this action the way they did? SMITH: I don't know if I'd put it that way. I think they had a
difference of opinion. Netanyahu and the Trump administration about the urgency attached. But also they're in a different position. I mean, Iran has been directly attacking Israel, you know, through Hezbollah and Hamas and support for that for a while. So, Israel had a far greater urgency to deal with the Iran threat than we do. So, I think they had different timelines and different national security priorities.
And Prime Minister Netanyahu wanted to, at a minimum, slow down Iran's enrichment capacity and their ability to get closer and closer to a bomb. I do think there are some clear differences of opinion because, look, I mean, the central problem here is President Trump has made two promises that are incompatible. One, he's promised that he's going to stand up to all of our adversaries and enemies like Iran. He will be strong. He will force them to bow. And two, that he won't get us into any more conflicts.
Yeah, that's kind of hard to pull off. Both of those things. And right now, President Trump is caught between that. If he goes for a direct conflict with Iran, that has all kinds of implications and will lead to a wider war, he will have dragged us into a war and something he said he wasn't going to do.
So, the key here, Iran is weakened. I think that's a huge positive. It gives us the opportunity to negotiate on more favorable terms. But thinking that this is a winnable war and that we can somehow do regime change or significantly reduce their ability to build a nuclear weapon over time, I think would be a mistake.
HUNT: All right. Congressman Adam Smith, ranking member on the armed services committee in the House -- sir, thanks very much. Really appreciate your time today.
SMITH: Thanks for the chance.
HUNT: All right. Coming up next here, a major ruling from a federal judge ordering the release of a Palestinian activist who had been detained by the Trump administration.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[16:32:15]
HUNT: All right. Welcome back.
We do have some breaking news. Palestinian activist Mahmoud Khalil has just been ordered released from ICE detention. This decision from a federal judge coming more than three months after he was arrested outside his apartment on Columbia University's campus. Khalil expected to be released today.
CNN's senior legal analyst Elie Honig joins us now.
Elie, can you just remind us how we got here and help us understand why this is happening now? ELIE HONIG, CNN SENIOR LEGAL ANALYST: Sure. So, Khalil was arrested
back in March under an obscure part of a law called the Immigration and Naturalization Act of 1952. That law says that the secretary of state can deport a non-citizen if the secretary of state makes a finding that the person poses a serious threat to American foreign policy.
And so, invoking that law, Marco Rubio had Mr. Khalil detained, Mr. Khalil then hired attorneys, and he has filed a lawsuit challenging his detention and potential deportation. This is something called a habeas lawsuit that's in federal court in the district of New Jersey. And as part of that lawsuit, Mr. Khalil has asked to be released. While the lawsuit itself played out, and that led to today's ruling by the judge that he is to be released as the lawsuit plays out.
HUNT: So, Elie Honig, we understand that he has posted bail or is going to be able to be out on bail here. That doesn't mean that this is all resolved, though?
HONIG: Exactly. So, the continuing fight over whether Mr. Khalil can be deported, that will go on. But it's important whether somebody, of course, has bail or is locked up while it goes on. And the significance of the ruling by the judge and I should mention, I know the judge, I was a former prosecutor at DOJ with him, Judge Farbiarz.
So, there's a couple of things that I think we can read into today's ruling. One, the judge made specific findings on the record, and you have to do this anytime you're going to bail someone as a judge, that, Mr. Khalil is not a flight risk and that he poses no danger to the community. Judge Farbiarz said that on the record, the other thing is it indicates that Judge Farbiarz believes in Khalil's constitutional attack on his detention.
Judge Farbiarz has said that. He said he believes the law that I mentioned before is unconstitutional because it's too vague, and it allows the secretary of state to discriminate against someone's free speech rights under the First Amendment. So, it's a good indicator for Mr. Khalil as this case moves forward.
HUNT: All right. Elie Honig, always grateful to have you, sir. Thanks so much for jumping in for this.
HONIG: Thank you.
HUNT: All right. So, let's turn now to this story. We, of course, started out the week bringing you the story of those devastating murders of the Minnesota lawmaker and her husband. And while their deaths and, of course, the injuries of two other people prompted calls to tone down the heated rhetoric in this country, it appears to have done little to slow the worrying trend of accelerating political violence.
[16:35:10]
Just in the last week, we've had these -- a man was arrested in Texas for threatening lawmakers. Another was arrested for the attempted kidnaping of the mayor in Memphis. In Georgia, a 25-year-old was charged for threatening sexual violence against Senators Cruz and Fisher. Then there was the former coast guard officer who was arrested for making threats against President Trump. The NYPD investigation into car bomb threats made against mayoral candidate Zoran Mamdani.
And today, officials arrested an individual who they believe tried to run Ohio Congressman Max Miller off the road. The congressman's 911 call was just released.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
REP. MAX MILLER (R-OH): I was just driving to work, and I was cut off by a man in a Tesla who held up a Palestinian flag to me and then rolled down his window and said that I'm going to cut your throat and your daughter's. And he said, you're a dirty Jew. I'm going to (EXPLETIVE DELETED) kill you all, and I know who you are and where you live.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HUNT: So, how's that for terrifying?
Our panel is back.
Chuck Todd, I mean, when you. I mean, that is just the last week. All of those headlines of the way this rhetoric is turning into people who are either taking action or threatening action. That incident with Max Miller also combines just absolutely disgusting antisemitism as well, which is an undercurrent in many of these cases and instances.
What does this say, and is there any way to kind of to stop any of this?
TODD: I don't know if this is going to stop it, but it can't. Like it needs leadership. And unfortunately, right now I feel as if even those politicians that are speaking up are doing it from their own partisan point of view, right. So, it -- when one says it there creates this defensive posture with the other side, whatever the other side is. You know, sometimes if you're talking on the Israeli-Palestinian side, you'll get it. You're talking on the -- on the ICE issue and immigration. You get it another way.
But that's been the problem. I go back to what I said earlier this week. It's going to take presidential leadership.
This is a moment, right, you need -- there's only one president at a time. There's one person. He's the leader here. No matter what -- he has the ability if he wants to convene, to tone down. I think a previous -- presidents of the past, some of them might have convened an event at the White House, might have tried to bring some folks together. How can we tone this down?
This is not a priority of our national political leadership, right? There are certainly people nervous about it in Congress, but you don't see it from the White House. And look, this is what a president has to do. And I think without presidential leadership, this isn't going away.
HUNT: Congressman, I mean, you were an elected official. I mean, talk a little bit about what it was like for you and how it's changed. I know you're still in touch with a lot of your former colleagues. This has really accelerated.
CUNNINGHAM: I mean, first of all, I agree with Chuck. It's going to take leadership from the top, but it can also take members and senators standing up unified and talking about this from both sides of the aisle.
But, you know, let's dispel a myth. Like vast, vast majority of members of Congress don't have security, right? Unless you're in leadership, the five or six members of Congress and leadership, you know, you leave the office, you leave the Capitol, you fly back home, you go to the airport --
(CROSSTALK)
TODD: -- out of their own campaign account.
CUNNINGHAM: Or that, you know? So like, and I've had death threats before, and it's unnerving to have a squad car parked outside your house with a family.
And, I mean, we could talk on and on about this, but let's think about the chill that it puts on other folks who may want to enter public service and may want to, you know, serve their country, but be like, well, I don't want to put my family through this when, you know, when the national mood and environment is so toxic and so bad.
So, it's going to take leadership from the top, but it's also going to take, you know, electing higher quality members and senators.
GARCIA-NAVARRO: We have now, though, become a country that has political and violence as an endemic part of our political process. We can look at other countries and point fingers and we can say, oh, my goodness, look at Mexico. Look at, you know, other countries around the world.
But this is now something that we are dealing with here. And we are getting used to it. And that's what worries me. We are getting used to it. People are indifferent to it. They feel like its the cost of doing business.
HUNT: I want to play a little bit of what Congressman Van Orden had to say about this when he talked about it, what it was like to be threatened, but also what it should be, or rather, what's being allowed to happen. Just watch.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
REP. DERRICK VAN ORDEN (R-WI): When people are trying to threaten you with violence, to prevent you from doing your job as a legislator, that's not how this country was designed.
[16:40:08]
People have been enabled. So, if you keep saying things over and over and over again and no one tells you to knock it off, you're just going to keep it up. You don't go from zero to assassinating somebody overnight. That's a long, iterative, terrible process.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HUNT: I mean, Shermichael Singleton, Republican there and speaking to, you know, what Lulu was, was speaking to and also, Chuck, that when this is allowed to happen without leaders who say it's not okay, if fundamentally changes the environment.
SINGLETON: It does. I do wonder, though, Kasie, if that is enough, if words from leaders will still hold the same prowess they once held 20, 25 years ago, I'm a bit skeptical. I think about Francis Fukuyama's article that came out in the late 1980s about democracy, and he questioned, is this as good as it becomes when you think about discontent and people being angry and anxiety and people feeling that nothing is working for me, then you really sort of have an explosion.
And that's what we're seeing, to your point, Lulu is just becoming normal. We're used to this. It's like, well, this is just the case of being in America. This is just the expectation, when anxiety is at an all-time high, we're going to take action with our own hands and try to act on those.
HUNT: But this is something, this was supposed to have been different about America, right?
SINGLETON: I agree with you, Kasie.
HUNT: We're supposed to solve our problems with words.
SINGLETON: I agree 100 percent, but I think we're finding ourselves as a result of where people see their current situations, being their lives, being at a place where no one is attempting to reform it for the betterment, then people are willing to take things into their own hands and are negative.
GARCIA-NAVARRO: There's a question here, is this top down, or is this bottom up? That is the question.
SINGLETON: I agree.
GARCIA-NAVARRO: Chuck Todd is making the point that this is -- can be seen as top down, because you have such heated rhetoric coming from partisans. I'm not -- I'm -- and then and then the other question is, you know, what effect does that have?
There's multiple studies that show that leaders have an enormous effect. People take their cues from leaders.
CUNNINGHAM: But that's one part of it.
TODD: But there's also, look -- CUNNINGHAM: Part of it.
TODD: Five years ago, we all speculated, hey, how long can we allow violent rhetoric online and assume it just stays online? And it stayed online for a couple of years. Now, it's not staying online. I mean, I think we can't look away from that, right? Big tech and their algorithms fuel this as well, right? They keep you online, they keep you angry.
HUNT: You reward this kind of speech --
TODD: Correct.
HUNT: -- by elevating it.
TODD: And then there's this other weird aspect where some of these violent actors take the guy who assassinated the health care executive are lionized.
SINGLETON: But that goes to the discontent and disillusion.
TODD: There's no doubt. But this is -- this is, you know, we have this, you know, so this is where it's a two-pronged issue. You've got a leader at the top who needs to do better. And certainly, there are times that he feels as if he almost also in rewards. It doesn't look away.
But let's not take, you know, big tech has algorithm it us to a boiling point for their own profits here that is also contributing.
CUNNINGHAM: It's a -- and it's a multi-pronged issue, right? There's a mental health issue in our country. Like you said, there's --
TODD: I don't know if it's cause or effect, by the way.
CUNNINGHAM: But there's cable news, there's social media, there's a cycle here when members go into the committee room and they say something outlandish, and then it ends up on cable news network, and then it goes to a fundraising email, then it goes to social media, and it perpetuates itself. And it's hard to get these people out of office because of gerrymandering, because, you know, you can only attack some of these people from the flank.
So, you go to the far left or the far right, you know, and they're not you know, they're not leaving willingly, as we've seen, right? So, without age limits or term limits or redistricting.
SINGLETON: But, Kasie, I do think, though, that there's a real problem with cultural discontent and decline. And I think you can see a through-line to why people are angry. You can see the anxiety. And I think you can look at that and point to why some people, not all, and I'm not justifying it, but why some believe this is the only way to actualize their concerns.
Don't agree? Disagree and we need to address it. But I don't think you can overlook -- TODD: Well, there's no doubt our democracy isn't -- look, our
democracy isn't working. Well, we have a Congress that isn't very representative. It probably needs to be twice the size. I mean, I do think people feel disconnected from government.
GARCIA-NAVARRO: I don't think that's why this is happening.
TODD: But it creates -- to defend Shermichael here, it does -- the farther you are away from government, the more you think you have to take matters into your own hands and the Internet rewards those who take matters in their own hands.
HUNT: Well, in a world to where -- you know --
TODD: But I take, I mean, it's all of it.
HUNT: If people are feeling as though they do not have access to the American dream, if they feel like the system is not one where they can succeed, and then you combine it with leaders who offer permission structures that allow people to take matters into their own hands.
GARCIA-NAVARRO: And lots of guns.
HUNT: And lot's of phones, you have a really, really difficult situation.
All right. This is obviously a conversation we could let go for the rest of the hour, and we're going to continue to have it.
TODD: But we didn't yell at each other.
HUNT: But hey.
TODD: Right, we showed you how to have the conversation, America. We can do it.
HUNT: All right. Coming up next here, the surprising, shocking, interesting endorsement today from one of the Democratic Party's biggest names.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[16:49:44]
HUNT: All right. Welcome back.
Andrew Cuomo, remember him, earning the endorsement today of South Carolina Congressman James Clyburn, who could help give the former governor an extra boost with Black voters in Cuomo's bid to lead the country's biggest city.
[16:50:00]
Here's what Clyburn wrote in a statement. Cuomo, quote, has the experience, credentials and character to not just serve New York, but also help save the nation. The panel is back.
I have two people here I would really be interested in hearing about. That was quite a like, I mean, you know, there's an endorsement and then there's an endorsement. The guy who was kind of run out of town on the rails for being a sexual predator. Clyburn says he has the character for it.
Why is he doing this, Chuck?
TODD: Oh, I think he's speaking for a mainstream wing of the Democratic Party who's absolutely petrified of New York, of the mayor of New York city being a socialist.
HUNT: Right. And we should clarify that the candidate, Mamdani, who is seems to be gaining steam. If you look at the latest Marist poll, especially with ranked choice voting, does seem to be a possible winner, right?
TODD: Right, he would be. It's either going to be -- and look, by the way, the actual mayor is on the ballot as an independent candidate, Andrew Cuomo, if he loses the Democratic primary, is still on the ballot in another party. They've got the crazy fusion ticket business in New York.
But there is a panic if the mayor of New York City is a symbolic post, right? We know this. The mayor of New York city is one of the five most prominent elected offices in America, arguably in the top three of prominence. People see him.
And if the mayor of New York City is a Democratic socialist, that is going to be something that Republicans exploit. And the divide already in this Democratic Party between the progressive left and the -- what you want to call the centrists or the mainstream liberals, however you want to describe that wing, you want to talk about a fight that just all of a sudden gets even more explosive.
I think that's why you have a Clyburn trying to step in there and play the role of. But it's interesting. It's like, why did Cuomo have to go? Clyburn we know Obama said no. There was no way he was going to insert himself into this.
I'm curious because I don't know if it really means anything in New York City, but he is sending a message to the party of, hey, national party is trying to not going to side with the socialists. I think there's real -- I know this, there's real panic in Democratic circles about this race.
HUNT: Really interesting. So, congressman, for our viewers who may not be aware, you and Mr. Clyburn have a certain amount of history, as you of course, running as a younger candidate tried --
CUNNINGHAM: Still young.
HUNT: You are still -- remain --
(LAUGHTER)
TODD: Well, you're younger than most members of Congress.
HUNT: You are no longer --
CUNNINGHAM: You set the bar pretty high there, pretty high.
HUNT: But you -- you know, you suggested that, hey, like, members of Congress shouldn't be allowed to serve as long as they are. Clyburn, one of the most senior people from your home state here.
What do you think he's doing?
CUNNINGHAM: I mean, what Chuck says sounds about right to me. You know, and look, that's a -- that's a great gift for Cuomo, right? There's no doubt about that.
And you much rather have as a candidate have those endorsements than not have the endorsements. The only question becomes like at the end of the day for Cuomo, like how much of a difference does it make? You know, while Clyburn is well-regarded, well-respected in his district in South Carolina on the national scale, you know, I think these endorsements don't carry the same weight that they used to, with the exception of one.
And that endorsement will not help you in New York City. Yeah, yeah.
HUNT: Lulu, what do you think the stakes are? I mean, if he were to win, it would be an earthquake, frankly.
GARCIA-NAVARRO: Yeah, it would be an earthquake. But I think what we're seeing here is the problems within the Democratic Party and the fight about the Democratic future playing out in New York City, as it often does. You have, you know, Cuomo coming in and being this kind of traditional Democrat, you know, wanting to be an emblematic of like fighting Trump.
And then Mamdani is appealing to, you know, voters of color people who are upset about the state of the city and want to see profound change. And we see this in the Democratic Party because the Democratic Party doesn't know what it wants to be in order to attract voters back.
HUNT: All right. Coming up, something totally different. It's a list, and it has everyone divided.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[16:58:40]
HUNT: All right. Welcome back. Billboard has published its list of the 75 best R&B artists of all time. And it has more than a few people saying, I'm sorry, what?
So, here's the top five. Okay. Whitney Houston, Beyonce, Michael Jackson and Aretha Franklin. Coming in at number one is Stevie Wonder. Of course, some music fans
have shared outrage over Mariah Carey's absence. Maybe snug. She was ranked number eight as well as Luther Vandross at 22. Others are raising the important question, are all the singers included actually, R&B artists? Donna Summer listed at number 34. Best known as a pop singer.
Number three is Michael Jackson is famously the king of pop. They also did not put groups. They were not part of the criteria when it came to ranking.
All right, who wants this one? Shermichael, is this list right?
Lulu, what do you think?
GARCIA-NAVARRO: I liked it, I thought it was a good list and. Yeah, I mean, one of the fun things about list is you get to argue who should be where and who should. You know. I mean, Prince is he -- if you're going to put Michael Jackson, would you not put Prince like?
SINGLETON: Right, I agree.
GARCIA-NAVARRO: I mean, so I have to say I don't understand --
TODD: But other genres are going to want Prince in their list.
SINGLETON: But is Mariah Carey an R&B singer or a pop artist?
HUNT: I don't know. Phil Mattingly, do you have an opinion about this?
PHIL MATTINGLY, CNN HOST: I take Lulu's side on this one. I embrace the debate, Kasie.
We'll see you back in THE ARENA. Next week.
HUNT: Sounds good. Have a good weekend.
